Difference between revisions of "Latter-day Saint scripture/Supposed contradictions"

m (→‎top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}})
m
Line 13: Line 13:
 
}}
 
}}
 
</onlyinclude>
 
</onlyinclude>
−
{{:Question: Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?}}
+
 
 
{{:Question: Do Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?}}
 
{{:Question: Do Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?}}
 
{{:Question: Are Mormon scriptures full of contradictions?}}
 
{{:Question: Are Mormon scriptures full of contradictions?}}

Revision as of 18:20, 21 May 2024

Contents


Alleged Contradictions in Latter-day Saint Scripture


Jump to details:


  1. REDIRECTCommon issues in interpretation and proof-texting#Do D&C 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?
Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ
Nature of scripture
Interpretation of scripture

Specific alleged contradictions in scripture

The challenge of Latter-day Saint scripture and an open canon to the rest of the christian world means that there is a long history of polemics targeted at the Church of Jesus Christ. These are well-worn "chestnuts" and standard biblical issues that have been repeatedly "asked and answered" for Latter-day Saints over nearly two centuries.

Table summary

The supposed contradictions arise from 1) misinterpretation, 2) comparing two verses when are speaking of different things and 3) reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Many conservative Protestant critics have reproduced a table which purports to show how LDS scripture contradicts itself.

The table below examines the supposed contradictions, presents the scriptures cited in context, and demonstrates that claims of contradiction rest on:

  1. a misinterpretation of LDS scripture
  2. comparing two verses which are speaking about different things
  3. reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Supposed Contradictions in LDS scripture

Number Column A: Book of Mormon... Column B: "Contrasting" scripture... Response and Comments

1

 One God Plural Gods
  • The scriptures in Column A all state that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Column B scriptures explain the nature of this oneness. Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance.
  • Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23).

To learn more:

2

 God is a Spirit God Has A Body
  • The scriptures in Column A describe missionary efforts to teach the pagan Lamanites about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Missionaries begin their efforts by explaining that what the Lamanites called "The Great Spirit" was God. This is not an attempt to give a theological description of God's nature, but to build on common beliefs.
  • To the Lamanites, being "The Great Spirit" did not preclude being corporeal—Ammon was mistaken for the great spirit, and yet he clearly had a body, could perform physical actions, etc. So, the concept of "spirit" used by the Lamanites is not (as the critics assume) the same as the "spirit" of Nicene trinitarianism.
  • The God to which the Column A scriptures refer is Jesus Christ, or Jehovah. In LDS doctrine, Jesus Christ was a premortal spirit that did not yet have a physical body when the scriptures in Column A were given. Thus, the description of Christ as a Spirit was accurate before His birth even in LDS terms.

To learn more

3

God dwells in the heart

...35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. 36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell....

God does not dwell in the heart

The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse [John 14:23], is a personal appearance; the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."
  • Column B explains that when Jesus says that He and the Father will "make our abode" with those who "keep my words," this means that the righteous may physically behold them. It targets the false idea that God does not have any physicality, and cannot be seen.
  • Column A describes the fact that the spirit of Satan or the Spirit of the Lord (i.e., the Holy Ghost) will "possess" or influence mortals depending upon their choices. The Holy Ghost can dwell in the heart of man, since he is a spirit (see 2 Timothy 1:14 and D&C 130꞉22).
  • It is telling that the supposed "contradiction" is explained later in section 130, but the critics ignore it.

4

 One God creates Multiple Gods create
  • As discussed in point #1, LDS doctrine sees God as one, but not one in substance. In LDS doctrine, God may be properly spoken of as one and as consisting of more than one person or being.
  • This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

To learn more

5

God Cannot Lie

God Commands Lying

...22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; 23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: 24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live. 25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.
  • Abraham misled the Egyptians by not disclosing all the facts. He did not disclose that Sarai was his wife. It was, however, true that she was his sister—more specifically, she was what anthropologists call a "parallel cousin," who under Jewish levirate law was considered his sister.[1]
  • Conservative protestant critics are disingenuous in posing this question, since Abraham twice uses this tactic in the Bible (though God is not said to explicitly command it). God no where condemns Abraham for this supposed "lie." Furthermore, the explanation for Abraham's claim is also included in the Bible—see Genesis 11:25-29 and Genesis 20꞉11-12).
  • The Bible also contains similar examples of God commanding a prophet to make a "strictly true" statement intended to deceive the wicked and protect the lives of the innocent, and other cases in which God ratified a decision to withhold the truth to save innocents.[2]

6

God's Word Unchangeable

Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.

God's Word Can Change

Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.
  • Column A speaks of "decrees of God"—the commandments which God has given about how to return to him, and the consequences for disobedience. The speaker is the prophet Alma, addressing a sinful son who has left the ministry in pursuit of a harlot.
  • Column B notes that humans may be in changing circumstances. Thus, God may give specific commands in one situation, and different commands in a different situation necessary for carrying out His work. God will not force men to obey—if some disobey, then God may need to alter commands. If he tells John to go on a mission, and John refuses, then God may need to "reassign" someone else to carry out John's former task. As the scripture says, the consequences of this will "be answered upon the heads of the rebellious"—there is still a penalty for disobedience, but God's plans cannot be thwarted by mortal disobedience.
  • Neither scripture mentions "God's word" (which conservative Protestants would associate with scripture), but this terminology allows the critic to give the misleading impression that the verses are discussing the alteration of scripture, instead of on-going revelation adapted to the good and bad choices which mortals make.

7

No Pre-Existence of Man

For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?....34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;
 Pre-Existence
  • The scriptures in Column A say nothing about pre-mortal existence. Jacob 4 asserts that God spoke and created man's body "upon the face of the earth." Alma says that man's body was created after the image of God. None of these says anything about a pre-existence.
  • Abraham 4꞉27 goes on to describe the creation of the body of mankind after the image of God—the same doctrines taught in column A.
  • This criticism assumes creation out of nothing—creatio ex nihilo—another unbiblical doctrine which conservative Protestants criticize Latter-day Saints for not accepting. For the critics, any creation must be ex nihilo creation; Latter-day Saint doctrine does not require this.

To learn more:

8

 Death seals man's fate
And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.
32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.
 Chance for repentance after death
  • Column A scriptures speak of those who have had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, and have rejected it. Such people lose their chance for exaltation in LDS doctrine (see D&C 76꞉73-78). They are those who "have known and...been taught all these things....[coming] out in open rebellion against God." Alma cautions those who "have had so many witnesses" against putting off the repentance and conversion which they know they need to undertake.
  • Column B describes those who have never had this opportunity.
  • If one cannot accept the gospel beyond the grave, then all those who have not heard of Christ in this life must be damned for all eternity—the critics may be comfortable with such an outcome, but the Latter-day Saints do not believe that a merciful God would condemn His children for that which they never had the full chance to receive.

9

 Heathen Saved Without Baptism Baptism for the Dead
  • The scriptures in column B explain how the results in column A are accomplished. The heathen who choose to accept Christ will be saved, without baptism in their mortal life, because of vicarious baptism in their behalf, which they may accept or reject.
  • The scriptures are clear that without baptism, no one may be saved (John 3꞉5). Yet, the majority who have lived on the earth have not had the opportunity for baptism. Without vicarious baptism and preaching Christ in the post-mortal world, God would be said to eternally damn the majority of mankind for something they never had the chance to receive.
  • Note: 2 Nephi is not necessarily targeted at "the heathen"—it is targeted at those who have not been given the law. The Book of Mormon teaches elsewhere that all normal people have the spirit of Christ given them, and know good from evil (Moroni 7꞉16). "Heathen" peoples would still be responsible for the degree to which they observed the law which they had been given through the spirit of Christ, and would require forgiveness of sins against that law—through Christ and post-mortal acceptance of vicarious ordinances. Those who have not received any law would probably be restricted to little children, and others with physical or mental handicaps that render them essentially "child-like."
  • Note: Moroni 8 is likewise discussing little children and others who have no law, not necessarily "the heathen."

To learn more:

10

 Only options are heaven or hell Three degrees of glory, with most people "saved"
  • The Book of Mormon teaches that one must accept Christ's sacrifice, or be damned: its focus is on either exaltation, or damnation. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how those who do not accept exaltation through Christ are judged according to their works. All who do not fully accept Christ will be blocked ("damned") from receiving some of the gifts which they could have enjoyed. Yet, it would be unjust for God to impose identical punishment on the vast range of human sins.
  • The Book of Mormon focuses the new or potential Christian on the absolute necessity of accepting Christ and His gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how God remains merciful and just as he judges those who have not fully accepted Christ's gospel by their works.
  • Once again, we see the critics upset because more information which complements—not contradicts—earlier scripture is given.
  • The table is also misleading, since Latter-day Saints use the term "saved" in a variety of ways, and would not regard most of those discussed in the Column B as "saved" in the same sense discussed in Column A.

'To learn more:

  • Dallin H. Oaks, "Have You Been Saved?," Ensign (May 1998): 55.off-site
    Elder Oaks discusses at least six senses in which Latter-day Saints use the term 'saved' in their theology.

11

 Murder can be forgiven
Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.
 'Murder cannot be forgiven
...And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
  • Column A is addressed to those who have not yet accepted and covenanted with Christ—"ye Gentiles." Column B is addressed "unto the Church." Those who have a certain minimum of spiritual knowledge cannot commit murder and be completely absolved of the consequences. Those with less spiritual knowledge may be forgiven of murder following sincere repentance (Alma 24꞉9-11).
  • Once again, two different doctrines are being taught, but the critics ignore this.

12

 Polygamy condemned Polygamy commanded
  • The critics are careful to omit the verse of scripture that explains this apparent contradiction, Jacob 2꞉30. This scripture from column A makes it clear that God may, under some conditions, command polygamy: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."
  • Scriptures in column A show the "default" command to practice monogamy, which God may alter according to His plan and circumstance as described in column B.
  • This is a tired, well-worn anti-Mormon attack—its dishonesty should be clear.

To learn more:

13

 Against Paid Ministries
...But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.
...Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."
 For Paid Ministries
those working full-time in the Church's temporal affairs are "to have a just remuneration" for their work. [Bishops and councilors, at the time, were full-time jobs. Many bishops today would probably agree that such callings could be full time nowadays as well!]
  • Column A does not reject having someone be paid in a religious capacity. Column A insist that the motivation for those working must always be God's glory and the benefit of the Church. If they are working for money, or to get gain, there are grave spiritual risks for teacher and listener.
  • The second scripture in column A reflects this, since the religious community described had just escaped a wicked society in which a king and his hand-picked priests had used religion for gain and the satisfaction of their lusts, not teaching of the truth.
  • The second scripture also acknowledges, however, that there may be circumstances in which religious leaders may need financial help or support, as described in the Column B scriptures.
  • Again, these scriptures are complimentary and addressing different aspects of an issue.
  • The critics omit the scripture from the Book of Mormon that describe the problem:
He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. (2 Nephi 26꞉29)
  • The problem is priestcraft—to do religious acts for the purpose of getting gain or glory.
  • Priestcraft is a problem of attitude, and can happen whether one is paid or not.

To learn more:

  • David A. Bednar, "Seek Learning By Faith," (3 February 2006), Address to CES Religious Educators, Jordan Institute of Religion. off-site
  • Dallin H. Oaks, "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign (October 1994): 15.off-site
    Elder Bednar and Elder Oaks discuss the risks of priestcraft for Church teachers, paid or unpaid.

14

 Corrupt Churches Promise Forgiveness For Money
31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. 32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.
 Church Members Who Pay Tithing Will Not Burn
23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. 24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
  • Column B has had the next verse (v. 24) omitted, which is need to properly interpret verse 23. Nothing in column B promises forgiveness of sins. Rather, column B points out that if members of the Church refuse to tithe, this is good evidence that they are proud and wicked—they remain committed to Babylon, a symbol of worldliness.
  • Tithing thus prepares us and helps transform us. It weans us from worldliness, and helps remake us into the type of people who will not be consumed at God's appearance. It does not purchase forgiveness—but, if offered in the proper spirit, it will transform us from the type of people who will not seek Christ's atonement with humility into those who will.
  • Churches described in column A offer forgiveness and absolution with no change in behavior or character. Column B calls for a change in behavior, which can transform character. Those thus transformed may then seek and receive forgiveness. The approaches are mirror opposites.

15

 Adam in the Americas Adam in the Old World
  • Moses is based upon the Bible narrative of Genesis. While the Genesis/Moses account describes the Garden of Eden in relation to four rivers—Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and the Euphrates. The first three rivers are related to the lands of Havilah, Ethiopia, and Assyria (see Genesis 2:11). This organization corresponds to no known geographical location, in the old or new worlds.
  • Since Genesis does not match a real world geography, rather than seeing these descriptions as literal, most Bible scholars have seen them as a symbolic tool to place Eden at the "center" of creation. Given that the Bible was written in the Old World, it is unsurprising that the symbols therein use Old World sites. Such symbols, however, are of little use in establishing a literal geographic location in either the Old or New World.

To learn more:

As we have seen, none of these paired scriptures contradict each other. This list misunderstands and misrepresents LDS doctrine.

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources
The table is found, with few if any variations, on multiple internet sites. FAIR does not link to anti-Mormon sites, but a Google search makes it easy to find.

Some sources credit the initial table to:

  • Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009).

Other sources that use it, with and without attribution to Tanner, include:

  • Bill Donohue, "The Book of Mormon Contradictions [sic] Itself; The Book of Mormon contradicts other Standard Works!" 2004; (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • Richard Deem, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," Evidence for God from Science (accessed 22 May 2009)
  • Ex-Mormons for Jesus, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • H.I.S. (He Is Savior) Ministries, "H.I.S. Ministries-Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • ICARE (Institute for Christian Awareness and Responsible Evangelism) Ministries, Inc., "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • The Interactive Bible, "The Book of Mormon contradicts Itself! The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible!" (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • Jesus Christ Saves Ministries, San Diego, California; "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • "Mormon Theology: Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith," at Religion & Spirituality at Squidoo (accessed 22 May 2009).
  • RiverValley Church, 1331 High Avenue, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; On-line in section "Other religions," where "we will from time to time publish documents that look at what other religions believe and how they contradict Christianity. Use these resources to understand what others believe and strengthen your belief in our holy and good God. Please do not use these documents as tools to segregate or cause prejudice against others with opposing beliefs." (italics in original) No author, "Investigation into Mormonism," 3-4 (the table is followed by a pages 5-10, which contain Sandra Tanner, "Sharing Your Faith with Latter-day Saints.") (accessed 22 May 2009)

Details on alleged contradictions

Alleged contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants


Do D&C 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons

It is claimed that LDS scriptures such as D&C 20꞉37 (first case) and 2 Nephi 31꞉17, 3 Nephi 12꞉2, and Moroni 8꞉11 (second case) are contradictory about the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins and that that "Mormon theologians" have ignored this issue.

As is typical in such charges of self-contradiction, the critics either:

  • misinterpret LDS scripture;
  • compare verses of scripture which are not speaking about identical issues;
  • read Protestant terminology or theology into LDS scripture.

In this case, the critics have committed all three mistakes. As such, it is not surprising if "Mormon theologians" have spent little on the issues. The critics are looking to find fault, and so strain at gnats. LDS thinkers understand LDS doctrine, and so see clearly that there is no contradiction.

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons—any one of which is sufficient to disprove the critics' claim. We will first list the scriptural texts, and then discuss each of the three reasons for which they are not properly seen as contradictory.

Scriptures to be considered

The first case

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church (D&C 20꞉37).

The second case

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31꞉17).

...Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins (3 Nephi 12꞉2).

And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins (Moroni 8꞉11).

Reason #1: The scriptures are discussing two slightly different issues

There is a difference between "received of the Spirit of Christ" (which is given to every man—see Moroni 7꞉16—but may be received or not depending on choices and heed paid to it) and the baptism of "fire and the Holy Ghost" which happens after baptism, as Joseph Smith taught:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. [3]

Reason #2: The audience and presumed intent for the audience are slightly different

Note too that those in the first instance have repented and expressed a desire to be baptized, which desire and sincerity can then lead to a remission of their sins, (i.e., the intent is what matters, and a willingness to follow through on that intent).

In the second case, Nephi is encouraging those who may not have accepted the Messiah to do so, and to obey the commandments and example given by the Messiah—including baptism. So, his target audience is those who have perhaps not yet "desire[d] to be baptized." When they have that desire (by hearkening to the Spirit of Christ), they will then repent and hearken to it, and will choose to be baptized. This decision to repent and follow Jesus will ultimately lead to forgiveness, and the baptism of fire and the purging out of sin that comes with the receipt of the Holy Ghost (after baptism).

In short, the audience in the first case is further along in the process than the audience in the second.

Reason #3: The question presupposes that "forgiveness" is a single, unique event, when in fact it is an on-going process

Here, we see that the critics are viewing this question through the lenses of conservative protestantism.

The critics are assuming that the Book of Mormon matches their view of salvation, in which someone is "saved" once and finally by some type of "altar call" or confession. By contrast, LDS theology sees salvation, repentance, forgiveness, and purification and transformation by the Holy Ghost as on-going processes. The experience begins before baptism, leads us to baptism, and is the fulfillment of the promises and covenants of baptism, which must then be persisted in as we "endure to the end."

As the second case scriptures explain, as we learn of Jesus we are humbled and desire to repent. Repentance requires that we appreciate that we have not kept all of God's commandments, and we regret not doing so. We become resolved to keep God's commandments from henceforth, and the first commandment which we can obey is to choose baptism. The baptism is an outward sign of our repentance and determination to keep God's commandments, and this willingness to covenant with Jesus allows us (as the first case notes) to "receive...of the Spirit of Christ," which begins the process of remitting our sins. If we do not persist in our intention to follow Jesus, however, and were to suddenly choose not to be baptized, we would have returned to sin.

When we have been baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which purifies us as if by fire, as sin and evil are burned out of us, and we walk in newness of life, following Jesus. We must then endure to the end, for if we do not, the remission of our sins (which we have only received because we have chosen to enter a covenant with Christ) will be null and void. The subsequent verses of 2 Nephi 1 explain this clearly:

And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive. And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the FatherYe shall have eternal life (2 Nephi 31꞉18-20).

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources
  • Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 207. ( Index of claims )
  • La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site
    Rather than contrasting the Book of Mormon and D&C, this author contrasts the D&C with Parley P. Pratt's Voice of Warning, 105 which echoes the Book of Mormon.
Past responses

Alleged contradiction between Book of Mormon, Book of Moses and Book of Abraham on number of Creators

Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe "God" as creating, while the Book of Abraham describes "Gods?"

Summary: Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

Does Lehi contradict Jeremiah 7 and prove himself a false prophet?

One critic has claimed that Jeremiah 7 proves that Lehi wasn’t a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon’s authenticity is thus affected negatively.

Jeremiah 7 contains Jeremiah’s pleas before the kings of Israel to not fight back against Babylon. Babylon was forming a then-impending invasion on Israel. Certain prophets like Hananiah in Jeremiah 8 were prophesying that Jerusalem and Israel should fight back against Babylon and that the Lord would carry them to victory over Babylon.

Jeremiah receives revelation that those prophecies are not from the Lord. He is instructed to tell the kings of Israel to surrender willfully to Babylon and allow themselves to be carried away to Babylon for 70 years. As verse 8 of chapter 27 of Jeremiah says:

And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Further, any prophet claiming otherwise should not be listened to. Chapter 27꞉12-18:

¶ I spake also to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, as the Lord hath spoken against the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you.

Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and livewherefore should this city be laid waste? But if they be prophets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of hosts, that the vessels which are left in the house of the Lord, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem, go not to Babylon.

Lehi, the critic asserts, is given revelation to leave Jerusalem. Thus, he remains outside of Jeremiah’s instruction from God via revelation to submit and be slaves to Babylon. Thus either both prophets aren’t actually prophets or one is right and the other is a false prophet.

Response to Question

It’s important to keep in mind exactly what Jeremiah is responding to. Jeremiah is responding to the wickedness of Israel and the city Jerusalem. He believes that Israel and Jerusalem are so wicked that the Lord must punish them and, indeed, he has received revelation from God that God is going to do just that: punish Israel via the Babylonian invasion. If they resist the Babylonian invasion, they face the sword, famine, and pestilence until they die. If they don’t resist, they face the 70 years of punishment via slavery in Babylon. Much nicer.

Lehi heard prophets in Jerusalem saying that "the people must repent, or that great city Jerusalem must be destroyed" (1 Nephi 1꞉4). He also read a book in vision that said that Jerusalem "should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon" (1 Nephi 1꞉13). Jerusalem could be saved if they repented. As Lehi exclaimed "Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty ! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish" (1 Nephi 1꞉14). Lehi told his contemporaries of this way out of destruction via repentance, but, according to Nephi’s account of Lehi’s ministry, Lehi was mocked and his people sought to take away his life (1 Nephi 1꞉20). Lehi is then commanded personally in a dream to take his family and depart into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2꞉2).

Thus, Jeremiah is telling people to not actively resist the Babylonian invasion whether by violence or some other means but to submit to their rule. Otherwise they face destruction. Lehi is saying that if the people repent they don’t have to face each other. The two prophets don’t necessarily make it explicit in both of their messages that both of these options were available to the people, but that does not make their messages conflicting.

Why does the Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected. We refer to God's role as our Heavenly Father before our mortal lives.

Biblical statements indicate that God is the father of our spirits and we were known to him before our birth (e.g., Jeremiah 1:5). This is a separate doctrine from the doctrine of a glorious resurrection, which is clearly Paul's topic.

It is unfortunate that critics find it necessary to distort and twist the clear meaning of scripture in an attempt to make the Latter-day Saints "offenders for a word."

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead. For example, earlier in the chapter he has written:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christwhom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own orderChrist the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. .. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die... (1 Corinthians 15:12-36)

Paul clearly believes, then, that the physical body with which we die will be resurrected.

He then tells the Saints that:

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption... It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:40-43.)

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:52-53.)

The "natural" body is the weak, corruptible mortal body that is "sown in weakness." The "spiritual body" is the glorified, resurrected body "raised in power." But, this does not mean that it is not also a physical, or corporeal body—Paul has just spent several verses insisting upon the reality of Christ's resurrection, and using Him as a model for the resurrection of the Saints. And, clearly Jesus' body was tangible and physical following the resurrection:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have''. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (Luke 24:39-42, (emphasis added).)

Learn more about premortal life
Key sources
  • Kevin L. Barney, "On Preexistence in the Bible" FAIR link
FAIR links
  • Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, Chapter 3. FAIR link
  • Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," Proceedings of the 2007 FAIR Conference (August 2007). link
Online
  • Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," FAIR Conference 2007 off-site
  • Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "Premortal Life and Mortal Life: A Fearful Symmetry," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60/0 (15 March 2024). [vii–xxii] link
  • Dana M. Pike, "Formed in and Called from the Womb," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/8 (30 November 2020). [153–168] link
  • Russell C. McGregor, "The Anti-Mormon Attackers (Review of The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible)," FARMS Review 14/1 (2003). [315–320] link
Print
  • Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, 2nd edition (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2013).
  • Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).
  • Terryl L. Givens, When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought (Oxford University Press, 2009).
  • Richard R. Hopkins Biblical Mormonism (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994).
  • Truman G. Madsen in Eternal Man (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1966).
  • Boyd K. Packer in Our Father's Plan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1984).
  • Joseph Fielding Smith in Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954).
  • Brent L. Top The Life Before (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988).
Navigators

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources
  • Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

How is John 4:24 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church's doctrine of God having a body?

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof

King James Version

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4꞉24

Other translation(s)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (NASB)

God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is." (TEV)

God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth. (CEV)

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof. The Latter-day Saint belief that God is an embodied spirit is perfectly consistent with the passage in question and critics are in error to insist that the passage must be interpreted as "God is a disembodied spirit."

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrine of the corporeal nature of God. Critics argue that this passage proves that God does not have a physical body.

Commentary

The context of this verse is that Jesus is explaining to a Samaritan woman how one must worship. Jesus teaches that the place of worship, whether Samaria or Jerusalem, is not important, but rather the way one worships. By teaching attributes of God, Jesus teaches how His children can and should relate to Him and worship Him. Latter-day Saints emphatically agree that God is indeed spirit, just as He is love 1 Jn 1:5, light 1 Jn 4:8, and a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24, but He is not only spirit, love, light, or fire.

The Greek language has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") and so the translator must decide whether to include that word in the English text. But for Latter-day Saints, the presence or absence of the article makes no difference. Latter-day Saints believe both that God is spirit (as an attribute) and that God is a spirit (as a statement of His nature). Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe that all people are also spirits, but spirits housed within a physical body.

In the chapter immediately preceding this scripture, in John 3:5-6 , Jesus says the following:

John 3꞉5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3꞉6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (NASB)

It is clear from the above verse that Jesus considered it entirely possible for a mortal human with a physical body to be spirit. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that God the Father simultaneously has a physical body and "is spirit."

Learn more about God as embodied
Online
  • David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link
Print
  • Barry R. Bickmore, "Does God Have a Body In Human Form?"
  • Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95/1 (2002): 97–118.
  • Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), 33–34.
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7," in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 285–317. ISBN 0934893713.
  • David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–116.
  • Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 155–173. ISBN 0884943585.
  • James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (Free Press, 2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–106, 134–135.
  • Roger Cook, "God's 'Glory:' More Evidence for the Anthropomorphic Nature of God in the Bible."
  • Roland J. Teske, "Divine Immutability in Saint Augustine," Modern Schoolman 63 (May 1986): 233.
  • Barry R. Bickmore, "The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man," in Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).
Navigators

How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church doctrines of humans' ability to become like God through Christ's atonement?

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshipped

King James Version

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43꞉10

Other translation(s)

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. (NIV)

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man. It is claimed that this verse proves that there never has been or ever will be another being who could properly be called a god.

Commentary

This passage and other similar proof texts from the Hebrew scriptures are misused by critics. When read in context, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to differentiate YHWH from the foreign gods and idols in the cultures surrounding the Jews.

Verses 43꞉11-13 are a continuation of the statement by God:

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God.

Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" (NIV)

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped.

In addition to misapplying this passage, critics also fail to recognize the growing body of evidence that shows that the Jewish religion was not strictly monotheistic until quite late in its development, certainly after the era in which Isaiah was written. When this evidence is considered, it appears that Judaism originally taught that though there are indeed other divine beings, some of whom are called gods, none of these are to be worshiped except for the God of gods who created all things and who revealed Himself to Moses.

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God
Key sources
  • Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links
  • Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link
  • D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online
  • Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
  • Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site
  • Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site
  • Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site
  • Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link
  • Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link
  • David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site
  • Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site
  • Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site
  • Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site
  • Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link
  • Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link
  • John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link
  • Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link
  • Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link
  • Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link
  • Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link
  • David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link
  • Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link
  • Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site
  • Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site
    Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video
Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference
Print
  • Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20.
  • David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109.
  • Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here.
  • K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55.
  • Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170.
  • Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94.
  • Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37.
  • Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification
  • Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7.
  • Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109.
  • Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988).
  • Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986).
  • Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332.
  • Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87.
  • Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990).
  • Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52.
  • Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423.
  • Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966).
  • Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398.
  • Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186.
  • Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420.
  • Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359.
  • Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71.
  • Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85.
  • Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6.
  • Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7.
  • Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903).
  • Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3.
  • Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13.
  • Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40.
  • Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120.
  • Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69.
  • Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754.
  • Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207.
  • Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280.
  • Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94.
  • Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107.
  • Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99.
  • Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24.
  • Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991).
  • Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389.
  • Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62.
  • Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273.
  • Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56.
  • Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62.
  • Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88.
  • Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519.
  • Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54.
  • Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35.
  • Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78.
  • Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14.
  • Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99.
  • Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91.
  • Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69.
  • Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934).
  • Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997).
  • Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243.
  • Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236.
  • Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288.
  • Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200.
  • Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264.
  • Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126.
  • Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated.
  • Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94.
  • Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492.
  • Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936).
  • Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975).
  • Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123.
  • Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374.
  • Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73.
  • Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78.
  • Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148.
  • Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112.
  • Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim.
  • Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6.
  • Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77.
  • Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406.
  • Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70.
  • Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023.
  • Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9.
  • Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888.
  • Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959).
  • Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996).
  • Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62.
  • Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54.
  • Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33.
  • Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70.
  • Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950).
  • Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717.
  • Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53.
  • Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492.
  • Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9.
  • Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984).
  • Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205.
  • Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50.
  • Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28.
  • Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192.
  • Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980.
  • McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103.
  • McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91.
  • McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4.
  • McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17.
  • McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim.
  • McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226.
  • Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116.
  • Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35.
  • Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68.
  • Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6.
  • Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53.
  • Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42.
  • Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57.
  • Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979).
  • Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987).
  • Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification.
  • Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska.
  • Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6.
  • Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980.
  • Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428.
  • Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82.
  • O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim
  • O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63.
  • O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45.
  • Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927).
  • Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8.
  • Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71.
  • Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176.
  • Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50.
  • Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375.
  • Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77.
  • Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90.
  • Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213.
  • Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25.
  • Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894).
  • Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69.
  • Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin).
  • Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995).
  • Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99.
  • Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970).
  • Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim.
  • Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200.
  • Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91.
  • Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8.
  • Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site
  • Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130.
  • Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997).
  • Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213.
  • Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13.
  • Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992)
  • Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965).
  • Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47.
  • Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105.
  • Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158.
  • Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93.
  • Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53.
  • Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60.
  • Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83.
  • Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954).
  • Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link
  • Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German).
  • Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952).
  • Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346.
  • Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site
  • Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77.
  • Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310.
  • Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32.
  • Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99.
  • Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40.
  • Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72.
  • Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952).
  • Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis.
  • Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78.
  • Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9.
  • Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9.
  • Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949).
  • Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49.
  • Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43.
  • Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98.
  • Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869).
  • Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950).
  • Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255.
  • Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496.
  • Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999).
  • Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8.
  • Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48.
  • Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52.
  • Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim.
  • Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420
  • Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators

How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics who claim that the doctrine of deification (theosis) is a teaching of Satan?

The use of Genesis 3 to counter the doctrine of deification/theosis has two problems associated with it:

First: Satan never claimed that Adam and Eve would be gods, just that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."


King James Version (KJV)

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does.

Bible in Basic English (BBE)

For God sees that on the day when you take of its fruit, your eyes will be open, and you will be as gods, having knowledge of good and evil.

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used by critics to attempt to show that the LDS doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan.

Commentary

The critics seriously misunderstand and misinterpret this passage of scripture.

Note that the serpent makes two claims:

(1) "ye shall not surely die" and

(2) "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

But if one looks forward to Genesis 3:22:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

Second problem: The second and bigger problem is that Satan was, in fact, telling the truth on this point, as God confirms.

God announces that Adam and Eve did indeed become as gods, knowing good and evil. As usual, Satan mixes lies and truth. In this case he said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die (a lie) but he also said that their eating would make them "as gods, knowing good and evil" (a truth).

So the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden was that transgressing God's law would not bring death (with the implication that Adam and Eve could have the god-like ability to know good and evil without paying a terrible price).

This chapter isn't even relevant to beliefs about deification.

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God
Key sources
  • Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links
  • Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link
  • D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online
  • Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
  • Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site
  • Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site
  • Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site
  • Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link
  • Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link
  • David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site
  • Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site
  • Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site
  • Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site
  • Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link
  • Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link
  • John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link
  • Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link
  • Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link
  • Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link
  • Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link
  • David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link
  • Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link
  • Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site
  • Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site
    Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video
Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference
Print
  • Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20.
  • David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109.
  • Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here.
  • K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55.
  • Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170.
  • Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94.
  • Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37.
  • Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification
  • Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7.
  • Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109.
  • Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988).
  • Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986).
  • Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332.
  • Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87.
  • Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990).
  • Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52.
  • Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423.
  • Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966).
  • Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398.
  • Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186.
  • Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420.
  • Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359.
  • Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71.
  • Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85.
  • Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6.
  • Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7.
  • Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903).
  • Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3.
  • Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13.
  • Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40.
  • Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120.
  • Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69.
  • Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754.
  • Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207.
  • Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280.
  • Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94.
  • Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107.
  • Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99.
  • Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24.
  • Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991).
  • Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389.
  • Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62.
  • Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273.
  • Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56.
  • Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62.
  • Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88.
  • Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519.
  • Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54.
  • Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35.
  • Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78.
  • Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14.
  • Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99.
  • Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91.
  • Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69.
  • Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934).
  • Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997).
  • Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243.
  • Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236.
  • Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288.
  • Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200.
  • Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264.
  • Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126.
  • Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated.
  • Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94.
  • Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492.
  • Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936).
  • Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975).
  • Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123.
  • Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374.
  • Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73.
  • Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78.
  • Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148.
  • Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112.
  • Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim.
  • Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6.
  • Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77.
  • Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406.
  • Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70.
  • Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023.
  • Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9.
  • Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888.
  • Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959).
  • Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996).
  • Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62.
  • Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54.
  • Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33.
  • Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70.
  • Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950).
  • Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717.
  • Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53.
  • Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492.
  • Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9.
  • Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984).
  • Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205.
  • Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50.
  • Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28.
  • Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192.
  • Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980.
  • McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103.
  • McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91.
  • McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4.
  • McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17.
  • McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim.
  • McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226.
  • Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116.
  • Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35.
  • Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68.
  • Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6.
  • Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53.
  • Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42.
  • Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57.
  • Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979).
  • Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987).
  • Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification.
  • Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska.
  • Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6.
  • Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980.
  • Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428.
  • Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82.
  • O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim
  • O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63.
  • O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45.
  • Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927).
  • Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8.
  • Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71.
  • Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176.
  • Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50.
  • Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375.
  • Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77.
  • Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90.
  • Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213.
  • Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25.
  • Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894).
  • Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69.
  • Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin).
  • Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995).
  • Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99.
  • Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970).
  • Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim.
  • Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200.
  • Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91.
  • Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8.
  • Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site
  • Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130.
  • Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997).
  • Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213.
  • Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13.
  • Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992)
  • Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965).
  • Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64.
  • Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47.
  • Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105.
  • Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158.
  • Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93.
  • Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53.
  • Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60.
  • Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83.
  • Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954).
  • Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link
  • Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German).
  • Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952).
  • Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346.
  • Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site
  • Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77.
  • Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310.
  • Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32.
  • Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99.
  • Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40.
  • Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72.
  • Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952).
  • Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis.
  • Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78.
  • Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9.
  • Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9.
  • Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949).
  • Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49.
  • Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43.
  • Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98.
  • Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869).
  • Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950).
  • Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255.
  • Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496.
  • Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999).
  • Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8.
  • Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48.
  • Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52.
  • Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim.
  • Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420
  • Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators


Notes

  1. ↑ Arthur C. Custance, "Abraham and His Princess," Hidden Things of God's Revelation (Zondervan, 1977), off-site ISBN 0310230217.
  2. ↑ See, for example, the examples of the Egyptian midwives and Moses discussed here.
  3. ↑ Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 199. off-site
Articles about Joseph Smith
Life and Character
Youth
Revelations and the Church
Prophetic Statements
Society
Plural marriage (polygamy)
Death

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

What is the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)?

Is the JST intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text?

Video published by BYU Religious Education.


The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

  • The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
  • One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

Matthews: "To regard the New Translation...as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text"

In describing the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), the leading expert, Robert J. Matthews, said:

To regard the New Translation [i.e. JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text. It seems probable that the New Translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories:

  1. Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
  2. Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
  3. Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "Likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. (See 1 Nephi 19:23-24; 2 Nephi 11:8).
  4. Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.

The most fundamental question seems to be whether or not one is disposed to accept the New Translation as a divinely inspired document.[1]

The same author later observed:

It would be informative to consider various meanings of the word translate. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives these definitions: "To turn from one language into another retaining the sense"; also, "To express in other words, to paraphrase." It gives another meaning as, "To interpret, explain, expound the significance of." Other dictionaries give approximately the same definitions as the OED. Although we generally think of translation as having to do with changing a word text from one language to another, that is not the only usage of the word. Translate equally means to express an idea or statement in other words, even in the same language. If people are unfamiliar with certain terminology in their own tongue, they will need an explanation. The explanation may be longer than the original, yet the original had all the meaning, either stated or implied. In common everyday discourse, when we hear something stated ambiguously or in highly technical terms, we ask the speaker to translate it for us. It is not expected that the response must come in another language, but only that the first statement be made clear. The speaker's new statement is a form of translation because it follows the basic purpose and intent of the word translation, which is to render something in understandable form…Every translation is an interpretation—a version. The translation of language cannot be a mechanical operation … Translation is a cognitive and functional process because there is not one word in every language to match with exact words in every other language. Gender, case, tense, terminology, idiom, word order, obsolete and archaic words, and shades of meaning—all make translation an interpretive process.[2]

What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?

The Joseph Smith Translation does claim to be, in part, a restoration of the original content of the Bible. This may have been done (a) by reproducing the text as it was originally written down; or, (b) it may have been about reproducing the original intent and clarifying the message of the original author of the text in question. We are not entirely sure, but in either case the JST does claim to be, in part, a restoration.

Critics who fault the JST because it doesn't match known manuscripts of the Bible are being too hasty: we do not have the original manuscripts of any text of the Bible, nor do we know the exact nature of every change made in the JST and whether a particular change was meant to be a restoration of original text.

Kent P. Jackson, another leading expert on the JST, wrote:

Some may choose to find fault with the Joseph Smith Translation because they do not see correlations between the text on ancient manuscripts. The supposition would be that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. This reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that extant ancient manuscripts accurately reproduce the original test, and both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon teach otherwise.[3] Because the earliest Old and New Testament manuscripts date from long after the original documents were written, we no longer have original manuscripts to compare with Joseph Smith's revisions. The second problem with faulting the JST because it does not match ancient texts is that to do so assumes that all the revisions Joseph Smith made were intended to restore original text. We have no record of him making that claim, and even in places in which the JST would restore original text it would do so not in Hebrew or Greek but in Modern English and in the scriptural idiom of early nineteenth-century America. Revisions that fit in others of the categories listed above are likewise in modern English, "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" (D&C 1꞉24)/[4]

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary". The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on lds.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible". Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding. In general, it is probably better seen as a type of inspired commentary on the Bible text by Joseph. Its value consists not in making it the new "official" scripture, but in the insights Joseph provides readers and what Joseph himself learned during the process.

The Book of Moses was produced as a result of Joseph's efforts to clarify the Bible. This portion of the work was canonized and is part of the Pearl of Great Price. There was no attempt to canonize the rest of the JST then, or now.

What was the translation procedure used by Joseph Smith and his scribes to produce the JST?

Kent Jackson reports:

The original manuscripts of the JST, as well as the Bible used in the revision, still exist. They show the following process at work: Joseph Smith had his Bible in front of him, likely in his lap or on a table, and he dictated the translation to his scribes, who recorded what they heard him say. ... there are no parts of the translation in which the scribes "copied out the text of the Bible." The evidence on the manuscripts is clear that this did not happen. The Prophet dictated without punctuation and verse breaks, and those features were inserted as a separate process after the text was complete. [Some have argued that after supposedly] copying of text out of the Bible, the scribes then inserted the "numerous strikethroughs of words and phrases, interlinear insertions, and omissions," and thus Joseph Smith’s revised text was born. But the overwhelming majority of the revisions were in the original dictation and are simply part of the original writing on the manuscripts. There are indeed strikeouts and interlinear insertions on the manuscripts, but they came during a second pass through parts of the manuscripts and comprise only a minority of the revisions Joseph Smith made.[5]:20-21

Did Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary significanly influence the JST?

In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s Journal of Undergraduate Research titled "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation". In a summary of their research, Wayment and his research assistant wrote:

Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term "translation" with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.[6]

Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon then published a more detailed account of their findings together in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity (2020) edited by BYU professor Michael Hubbard MacKay, Joseph Smith Papers researcher Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Brian M. Hauglid.[7] Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the Journal of Mormon History.[8]

Wayment outlined what he and Haley Wilson believed they had found:

What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night. We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, "I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary." Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.[9]

Accusation of plagiarism

In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like "plagiarism" were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.

To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible. I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.

The reality of what happened is inspiring.

Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.

I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.[10]

Mark Ashurst McGee of the Joseph Smith Papers team made similar points as those of Wayment at the 2020 FAIR Conference held in Provo:


A rebuttal to the Adam Clarke hypothesis

In October 2020, Kent P. Jackson (Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and a leading expert on the JST) responded to Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon's work.[5]

Jackson's paper identified several striking weakness to the Adam Clarke hypothesis. These include:

  • "I have examined in detail every one of the JST passages they set forth as having been influenced by Clarke, and I have examined what Clarke wrote about those passages. I now believe that the conclusions they reached regarding those connections cannot be sustained. I do not believe that there is [Page 17] Adam Clarke-JST connection at all, and I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith ever used Clarke’s commentary in his revision of the Bible. None of the passages that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have set forward as examples, in my opinion, can withstand careful scrutiny."[5]:16-17
  • "Too often Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon did not read carefully what Clarke wrote, and thus they frequently misinterpret him by ascribing intentions to him that cannot be sustained from his own words."[5]:28
  • "There is much evidence in the JST to show that when the Prophet removed or replaced words, he had a tendency to save the deleted words and place them elsewhere, and this [Psalms 33:2] is a good example. All of these revisions are the opposite of what Clarke wanted."[5]:30
  • [there are] "several examples in which Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon isolate one small similarity to something Clarke wrote in his commentary, but it is in a Bible passage where nothing in Clarke can account for the other changes Joseph Smith made."[5]:31
  • "In his commentary on the surrounding verses in Isaiah 34, Clarke makes several suggestions for revising the text. The fact that none of those suggestions are reflected in Joseph Smith’s translation adds to the unlikelihood that Clarke was the Prophet’s source here at all."[5]:33
  • Regarding Mark 8, "Clarke provides what he felt was better wording for four passages in this chapter. Joseph Smith’s translations contains none of them. And Joseph Smith made over thirty changes in the chapter, some of them rather extensive, and none of them resemble anything in Clarke."[5]:39
  • "There is even further reason to rule out Clarke as the source for this change [in John 2:24]. [Clarke's] commentary on John 2 has over 3,000 words, and he recommends changing the text in ten places. Joseph Smith made over thirty changes in this short chapter, but this is the only one that resembles anything in Clarke. Why, among Clarke’s thousands of words and scores of thoughtful insights, would Joseph Smith make only this one small revision of minimal consequence if he had Clarke’s commentary in front of him?"[5]:40
  • "Wayment states that Adam Clarke 'shaped Smith’s Bible revision in fundamental ways.' Even if all of the passages he attributes to Clarke were really influenced by Clarke, it seems difficult to justify such a sweeping statement, given the mostly minor rewordings that we have seen. If among the verses listed above are the best examples, as Wilson-Lemmon states,102 then the Adam Clarke-JST theory can be dismissed out of hand."[5]:53

Jackson concluded that "none of the examples they provide can be traced to Clarke’s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained easily by other means."[5]:15

Similarly, Latter-day Saint scholar Kevin L. Barney, who has published on the JST in the past,[11] wrote that the chances for the Adam Clarke commentary influencing the production of the JST are "de minimis or negligible."[12]

To be sure, neither Jackson nor Barney are opposed to the idea that there could be secondary source influence on the production of the JST. Thus, this is a faith-neutral issue for both.

At the 2022 FAIR Conference held in Provo, UT, Professor Kent Jackson responded to the theory directly and in depth.[13]


Was the JST ever completed?

As one LDS scholar noted:

"The Bible Dictionary in the English LDS Bible states that Joseph Smith 'continued to make modifications [in the translation] until his death in 1844.' Based on information available in the past, that was a reasonable assumption, and I taught it for many years. But we now know that it is not accurate. The best evidence points to the conclusion that when the Prophet called the translation 'finished,' he really meant it, and no changes were made in it after the summer (or possibly the fall) of 1833."[14]

Joseph did not view his revisions to the Bible as a "once and for all" or "finally completed translation" goal—he simply didn't see scripture that way. The translation could be acceptable for purposes, but still subject to later clarification or elaboration. Joseph was, however, collecting funds to publish the JST—which indicates that he believed it was ready for public use and consumption.

George Q. Cannon reported that Brigham Young heard Joseph speak about further revisions:

We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet, before his death, had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fullness at the time of which we write.[15]

We again see that the JST or any other scripture is not the ultimate source of LDS doctrine—having a living prophet is what is most vital.

Why does the Church continue to use the KJV instead of the JST as its official bible?

The answer to this question is complex. There is no single reason; instead, there are many:

  1. There is no revelation that has directed the Church to replace the KJV with the JST. Such a change would require both prophetic instruction and a sustaining vote of the membership.
  2. The original manuscripts for the JST were retained by Emma Smith when the Saints went west. She later gave them to her son, Joseph III, and he had the first JST Bible printed under the auspices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At this time there was a great deal of animosity between the LDS and RLDS churches; Brigham Young feared that the RLDS church had tampered with the JST text and that it didn't accurately reflect Joseph Smith's original translation. Given that the Utah Church could not verify the translation, along with the fact that they did not own the copyright, kept the Utah Saints from embracing the JST. The LDS interest in the JST came much later, largely due to the scholarly work of Robert Matthews on the manuscripts in the early 1970s, and apostle Bruce R. McConkie's embrace of the JST.
  3. From a practical sense, adoption of the JST could cause a stumbling block for converts. The doctrine of Joseph Smith, modern prophets, and modern books of scripture are already difficult for many Christians to consider. In this sense, the KJV serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world.
  4. Portions of the JST have been canonized: Our Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew are excerpts from the JST.

In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work—it included multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST. (Ironically, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before critics of the Church began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.[16])

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use.[17]

Among Church leaders, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was especially vocal about the JST. In 1980, he said:

[Joseph] translated the Book of Abraham and what is called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This latter is a marvelously inspired work; it is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet. By pure revelation, he inserted many new concepts and views as, for instance, the material in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis about Melchizedek. Some chapters he rewrote and realigned so that the things said in them take on a new perspective and meaning, such as the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew and the first chapter in the gospel of John.[18]

In 1985 Elder McConkie told members during a satellite broadcast:

As all of us should know, the Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version as it is sometimes called, stands as one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet. The added truths he placed in the Bible and the corrections he made raise the resultant work to the same high status as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. It is true that he did not complete the work, but it was far enough along that he intended to publish it in its present form in his lifetime.[19]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Why does the JST translation of Genesis (the Pearl of Great Price's Book of Moses) contain New Testament language?

The Book of Moses comes from the few chapters of the JST—it is essentially the JST of the first chapters of Genesis.

The translation includes many phrases from the New Testament. The following occurences of New Testament language and concepts reflected in the Book of Moses were documented by David M. Calabro—a Latter-day Saint and Curator of Eastern Christian Manuscripts at the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library at Saint John’s University.[20]

Phrase Location in Book of Moses Location in New Testament
"Only Begotten" and "Only Begotten Son" Moses 1:6, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 26, 27; 3:18; 4:1, 3, 28, 5:7, 9, 57; 6:52, 57, 59, 62; 7:50, 59, 62 John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9
"transfigured before" God Moses 1:11 Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2
"get thee hence, Satan" Moses 1:16 Matthew 4:10
the Holy Ghost "beareth record" of the Father and the Son Moses 1:24; 5:9 1 John 5:7
"by the word of my power" Moses 1:32, 35; 2:5 Hebrews 1:3
"full of grace and truth" Moses 1:32, 5:7 John 1:14; cf. John 1:17
"immortality and eternal life" Moses 1:39 Both terms are absent from the Old Testament but are relatively frequent in the New Testament: immortality occurs six times, all in Pauline epistles; eternal life occurs twenty-six times in the Gospels, Pauline epistles, epistles of John, and Jude; "eternal life" also appears elsewhere like in Moses 5:11; 6:59; 7:45.
"them that believe" Moses 1:42; 4:32 Mark 16:17; John 1:12; Romans 3:22; 4:11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 14:22; Galatians 3:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 10:39; the contrasting phrase "them that do not believe" also appears (Rom. 15:31; 1 Cor. 10:27; 14:22)
"I am the Beginning and the End" Moses 2:1 Revelation 21:6; 22:13
"Beloved Son" as a title of Christ Moses 4:2 Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17; the phrase "beloved son" appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 20:13; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 1:2) and in the Greek Septuagint of Gen. 22:2, but it is absent from the Hebrew and KJV Old Testament.
"my Chosen," as a title of Christ Moses 4:2; 7:39 Compare "chosen of God" in reference to Christ in Luke 23:35 and 1 Pet. 2:4
"thy will be done" Moses 4:2 Matthew 6:10; 26:42; Luke 11:2
"the glory be thine forever" Moses 4:2 Compare Matthew 6:13 - "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever;" note the proximity of this phrase to "thy will be done" both in Moses 4:2 and in the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:9–1.
"by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that [Satan] should be cast down" Moses 4:3 Compare Revelation 12:10 - "Now is come . . . the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down"; note that the Hebrew title Satan means "accuser"
"the devil" Moses 4:4 Sixty-one instances in the New Testament, translating the Greek word diabolos
"carnal, sensual, and devilish" Moses 5:13; 6:49 James 3:15 "earthly, sensual, and devilish"
"Satan desireth to have thee" Moses 5:23 Luke 22:31 "Satan hath desired to have you"
"Perdition," as the title of a person Moses 5:24 Compare "the son of perdition" in John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; the word perdition as an abstract noun meaning "destruction" (translating the Greek word apoleia) occurs elsewhere in the King James version of the New Testament (Philippians 1:28; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 17:8, 11)
"the Gospel" Moses 5:58, 59, 8:19 Eighty-three instances in the New Testament; the word gospel, irrespective of the English definite article, occurs 101 times in the New Testament but is not found in the Old Testament.
"holy angels" Moses 5:58 Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Acts 10:22 (singular "holy angel"); Revelation 14:10
"gift of the Holy Ghost" Moses 5:58; 6:52 Acts 2:38; 10:45
"anointing" the eyes in order to see Moses 6:35 – "anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see" Compare John 9:6–7, 11 (Jesus anoints the eyes of a blind man with clay and commands him to wash in the pool of Siloam, and he "came seeing"); Revelation 3:18 (the Lord tells the church in Laodicea, "anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see"); these are the only passages in the Bible that refer to anointing the eyes
"no man laid hands on him" Moses 6:39 John 7:30, 44; 8:20
"my God, and your God" Moses 6:43 John 20:17
"only name under heaven whereby salvation shall come" Moses 6:52 Acts 4:12
collocation of water, blood, and Spirit Moses 6:59-60 1 John 5:6, 8
"born again of water and the Spirit"; "born of the Spirit"; "born again"; "born of water and of the Spirit"; "born of the Spirit" Moses 6:59, 65 John 3:3, 5-8
"the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" Moses 6:59 Matthew 13:11. The phrase "kingdom of heaven" is absent from the Old Testament; in the New Testament it is found only in Matthew (thirty-two occurrences), but it is frequent in rabbinic literature
"cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten" Moses 6:59 Compare 1 John 1:7 ("the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin")
"the words of eternal life" Moses 6:59 John 6:68
eternal life "in the world to come" Moses 6:59 Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; the phrase "the world to come" is absent from the Old Testament but occurs five times in the New Testament; other than the two just quoted, see Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 2:5; 6:5
"by the Spirit ye are justified" Moses 6:60 Compare 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Timothy 3:16
"the Comforter," referring to the Holy Ghost Moses 6:61 John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7
"the inner man" Moses 6:65 Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16
"baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost" Moses 6:66 Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16
"they were of one heart and one mind" Moses 7:18 Compare Acts 4:32
"in the bosom of the Father," referring to heaven Moses 7:24, 47 John 1:18 (note that JST deletes this phrase in this verse, perhaps implying that it entered the text sometime after its original composition)
"a great chain in his hand" Moses 7:26 Revelation 20:1 (here the one holding the chain is an angel, unlike Moses 7:26, in which it is the devil)
commandment to "love one another" Moses 7:33 John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10; 13:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12; 2 John 1:5
"without affection" Moses 7:33 Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3
"the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world" Moses 7:47 Compare Revelation 13:8 – "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," as a noun phrase); the term "the Lamb" is used as a title of the Messiah only in the New Testament and is distinctively Johannine (John 1:29, 36; twenty-seven instances in Revelation), and the words lamb and slain collocate only in Revelation 5:6, 12; 13:8.
"climb up" by a gate or door, as a metaphor of progression through Christ Moses 7:53 John 10:1

Video by The Interpreter Foundation.


This language can be explained by a few possible factors, not all mutually exclusive.

"After the Manner of Their Language" – Doctrine & Covenants 1:24

The first possibility to consider is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Moses into a vernacular that was comprehensible to his 19th century audience. Joseph's contemporaries were steeped in biblical language and used it even in everyday speech. The language of the New Testament was the natural way to discuss certain theological ideas.

D&C 1꞉24 tells us that in revelation, God uses the language of his audience to communicate effectively" Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."[21]

An early Christian context for the creation of the Book of Moses

Another possibility is that the Book of Moses was originally written in an early Christian context. That would place the composition of the Book of Moses in the 1st and 2nd century AD (about 1900 to 1800 years ago). Calabro outlined and defended this theory.[20] Calabro argues that the Book of Moses can still preserve actual events from the life of Moses while placing the story in a Christian context describing it with Christian language. Thus, Joseph Smith could actually be restoring lost understanding of Moses—but that information has already been filtered through New Testament language.

One potential weakness of this theory is that it disrupts the understanding of many Church members about the Book of Moses, since it has more traditionally been seen as a restoration of Moses' writings in Genesis. However, Joseph Smith does not seem to have left a detailed account of what the Book of Moses represents. Joseph saw the JST as a restoration of "many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled."[22]

This theory could also, in essence, be turned on its head, making an ancient version of the Book of Moses the source of subsequent Christian writing. Latter-day Saint author Jeff Lindsay and former BYU professor Noel Reynolds have theorized that the Book of Moses influenced the language of the Book of Mormon via the brass plates or another source.[23]

Similar messages to different nations

Speaking in reference to the Bible, the Book of Mormon has God announce that "I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."[24]

It is certainly possible that the same concepts were revealed to Moses with similar language as that used in the New Testament.

Conclusion—New Testament and the Book of Moses

There are therefore multiple models which would explain the similarity between the Book of Moses and the New Testament. Given that the Book of Moses claims to be a translation, it is hardly strange that it would echo another translation (the KJV bible) that discusses the same ideas and issues.

Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe "God" as creating, while the Book of Abraham describes "Gods?"

Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love

The scriptures affirm that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. A great debate in Christian history has been the nature of this oneness.

Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son.

This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

When Joseph performed his inspired translation of the Bible, why didn't he rewrite the creation account in Genesis to read more like that in the Book of Abraham?

The Bible does support plurality of gods

When God gives new insight and revelation, he doesn't typically "rewrite" all scripture that has gone before: He simply adds to it.

The creation account in the Book of Abraham supports a plurality of gods. Critics claim that the Bible does not support this. However, there are two errors in the assumption that the Bible does not support a plurality of gods.

There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis

Error #1: It is debatable that the unedited King James Version of Genesis truly only includes "one God." There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.... (Genesis 3꞉22)

Only creeds or convictions that insist on a single divine being make us unable to notice.

The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, the Book of Moses, actually did clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages

Error #2: The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis actually did clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages. The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (which is the simply the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis) has many examples of multiple divine personages:

I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all (Moses 1꞉6).

Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? (Moses 1꞉13)

for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten....Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me. (Moses 1꞉16-17)

Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son; (Moses 1꞉24)

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. (Moses 1꞉33)

That's just the first chapter of the JST of Genesis. There are many, many more examples in Moses.

In chapter 2 of Moses, God prefaces his remarks by saying, "I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest" (Moses 2꞉1).

So, in each case when "I, God" did something in the creation, it should be understood that the Only Begotten is also involved, since it is by him that God created all. So, there are multiple divine personages in each mention in the verses that follow.

Is the Church "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence

Some critics have claimed that the Church is "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. [25]

This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence. The claim was made in 1977. In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work. Thus, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before the Tanners began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.[26] It had multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST.

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use. Some examples of this effort published around the time the Tanners were making their claim include:

  • Robert J. Matthews, “The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration,” Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 off-site
  • Robert J. Matthews, “Plain and Precious Things Restored,” Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 off-site
  • Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’,” Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. off-site
  • Monte S. Nyman, “Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible,” Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 off-site

The Church is not, and was not, embarrassed by the JST. In its historical context, the critics' claim is incredibly ill-informed.

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

Parallel passages from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sometimes disagree not only with the King James Version of the Bible, but also with each other

Parallel passages from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sometimes disagree not only with the King James Version of the Bible, but also with each other. Critics ask why Joseph's earlier work (i.e., the Book of Mormon) generally followed the King James Version of the Bible closely while his later work (i.e., the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible) did not. Critics ask which translation did Joseph get right, implying that one is wrong, hence bringing his prophetic calling into question. Critics generally cite any of a number of passages from Matthew 5-7 from the King James Version and Joseph Smith Translation and 3 Nephi 12-14 from the Book of Mormon. A much celebrated example is:

Matthew 6:25-27 (King James Version)

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

3 Nephi 13꞉25-27) (Book of Mormon)

25 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

Matthew 6:25-27 (Joseph Smith Translation)

25 And, again, I say unto you, go ye into the world, and care not for the world; for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.
26 Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.
27 And your heavenly Father will provide for you, whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.

Joseph had different purposes in mind in his different translations

Joseph had different purposes in mind in his different translations. This is not unique or unusual in scripture—even the Bible. Hence, neither the Book of Mormon nor the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible can be discounted because of seeming discrepancies with each other or with the King James Version of the Bible.

Joseph Smith had different purposes in mind when bringing forth the Book of Mormon and the Joseph smith Translation. His purpose in bringing forth the Book of Mormon was to witness "the reality that "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations". Departing from the King James Version, i.e., the translation familiar to those who would become the Book of Mormon's first readers, would have been a stumbling block in achieving its purpose. On the other hand, Joseph's later purpose in bringing forth the Joseph Smith Translation is largely understood to have been one of redaction, or inspired commentary—to resolve confusion regarding biblical interpretation[27] Hence the different wording, and in some cases, even content.

Biblical Parallel

Gleason Archer, well known Evangelical Christian and the Author of a highly respected book called "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", addresses the issue of Paul citing deficient Greek Septuagint translations that appear in our New Testaments today in lieu of better translations of the Old Testament he could have come up with. Archer says:

Suppose Paul had chosen to work out a new, more accurate translation into Greek directly from Hebrew. Might not the Bereans have said in reply, "that’s not the way we find it in our Bible. How do we know you have not slanted your different rendering here and there in order to favor you new teaching about Christ?" In order to avoid suspicion and misunderstanding, it was imperative for the apostles and evangelists to stick with the Septuagint in their preaching and teaching, both oral and written.

We, like the first-century apostles, resort to these standard translations to teach our people in terms they can verify by resorting to their own Bibles, yet admittedly, none of these translations is completely free of faults. We use them nevertheless, for the purpose of more effective communication than if we were to translate directly from the Hebrew or Greek.[28]

Archer's point is that it is more important in certain settings that Paul's writings be familiar rather than 100% precise.

Learn more about the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible
Key sources
  • Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
FAIR links
  • Jeffrey Bradshaw, "The Message of the Joseph Smith Translation: A Walk in the Garden," Proceedings of the 2008 FAIR Conference (August 2008). link
  • Kent P. Jackson, "Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Outside Sources in His Translation of the Bible?," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link
Online
  • W. John Welsh, "Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?", lightplanet.com off-site
  • Garold N. Davis, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [123–129] link
  • Kevin L. Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 3 (Fall 1986), 85–102.off-site
  • Cynthia L. Hallen, "Redeeming the Desolate Woman: The Message of Isaiah 54 and 3 Nephi 22," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [40–47] link
  • Matthew L. Bowen, "'They Shall Be Scattered Again': Some Notes on JST Genesis 50:24–25, 33–35," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57/4 (23 June 2023). [107–128] link
  • Brant A. Gardner, "Joseph Smith's Translation Projects under a Microscope," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/15 (18 December 2020). [257–264] link
  • Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
  • Spencer Kraus, "An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith's Translation of Ancient Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52/1 (17 June 2022). [1–64] link
  • Mark J. Johnson, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [130–138] link
  • Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4/1 (1992). [235–250] link
  • Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link
  • A. Don Sorensen, "'The Problem of the Sermon on the Mount and 3 Nephi (Review of “A Further Inquiry into the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” Sunstone September–October 1982, 20–27)'," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [117–148] link
  • Sidney B. Sperry, "'Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [166–174] link
  • Sidney B. Sperry, "The Book of Mormon and the Problem of the Sermon on the Mount," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [153–165] link
  • Sidney B. Sperry, "The 'Isaiah Problem' in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [129–152] link
  • Sidney B. Sperry, "The Isaiah Quotation: 2 Nephi 12–24," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [192–208] link
  • John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
  • Kurt Manwaring, “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”.
  • LDS Perspectives, Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment .
  • Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation".
Video
Video published by BYU Religious Education.

Print
  • Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985).
  • Matthew B. Brown, "The Restoration of Biblical Texts," in All Things Restored, 2d ed. (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2006),159–181. AISN B000R4LXSM. ISBN 1577347129.
Navigators

Source(s) of the criticism—Discrepancies between KJV, JST, and Book of Mormon
Critical sources


Notes

  1. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 253.
  2. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "Joseph Smith as Translator," in Joseph Smith, The Prophet, The Man, edited by Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1993), 80, 84.
  3. ↑ "History of Joseph Smith," 592; 1 Nephi 13:28; see 13:23–29.
  4. ↑ Kent P. Jackson, Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.
  5. ↑ 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
  6. ↑ Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation," Journal of Undergraduate Research (March 2017) off-site
  7. ↑ Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, "A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation," in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.
  8. ↑ Thomas A. Wayment, "Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision," Journal of Mormon History 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.
  9. ↑ Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, "Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment," LDS Perspectives, September 26, 2019, https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/.
  10. ↑ Kurt Manwaring, "10 Questions with Thomas Wayment," From the Desk of Kurt Manwaring, January 2, 2019, https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/.
  11. ↑ See, for instance, Kevin L. Barney, "A Commentary on Joseph Smith’s Revision of First Corinthians," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 53, no. 2 (Summer 2020): 57–105.
  12. ↑ Kevin Barney, "On Secondary Source Influence in the JST," By Common Consent, April 16, 2021, https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/04/16/on-secondary-source-infuence-in-the-jst/
  13. ↑ Kent P. Jackson, "Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Outside Sources in His Translation of the Bible?," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link
  14. ↑ Kent P. Jackson, "New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible," in Religious Educator 6, no. 3 (2005): 149–160 (link).
  15. ↑ George Q. Cannon, The Life of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1888), 142.
  16. ↑ Lavina Fielding Anderson, "Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible," Ensign (Oct 1979): 9.
  17. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration," Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 off-site; "Plain and Precious Things Restored," Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 off-site; "Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’," Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. off-site; Monte S. Nyman, "Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible," Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 off-site
  18. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "This Generation Shall Have My Word Through You," Ensign (June 1980): 54.
  19. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/12/come-hear-the-voice-of-the-lord?lang=eng Come: Hear the Voice of the Lord]," Ensign (December 1985): 54.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 David M. Calabro, "An Early Christian Context for the Book of Moses," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 47/7 (20 September 2021). [181–262] link
  21. ↑ See also 2 Nephi 31꞉3.
  22. ↑ Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938), 10–11.
  23. ↑ Jeff Lindsay and Noel B. Reynolds, "'Strong Like unto Moses': The Case for Ancient Roots in the Book of Moses Based on Book of Mormon Usage of Related Content Apparently from the Brass Plates," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 44/1 (26 March 2021). [1–92] link Noel B. Reynolds, "The Brass Plates Version of Genesis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 34/5 (15 November 2019). [63–96] link
  24. ↑ 2 Nephi 29:8
  25. ↑ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 385.( Index of claims )
  26. ↑ Lavina Fielding Anderson, "Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible," Ensign (Oct 1979): 9.
  27. ↑ Kevin Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 3 (Fall 1986), 85-102.
  28. ↑ Gleason L. Archer, An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1982), 31. ISBN 0310435706.
Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ
Nature of scripture
Interpretation of scripture


How can one best read and understand the scriptures?

The proper interpretation and understanding of scripture is essential to the continued health and vitality of ever believer's faith, and it is a key means whereby interested seekers can come to faith.

And, what do we do if we come to something in scripture that we believe may be a contradiction?

This article offers some principles and procedures which may help.

1. Understand the nature of revelation

The scriptures won't be understood if we don't understand the nature of revelation. This is addressed on this page.

2. Read contextually

"Exegesis" is a fancy word for the interpretation or explanation of scripture.

OFten, when we’re speaking of exegesis, we are trying to understand how the first hearers/readers of those scriptures understood them. We assume that the historical background of that scripture can tell us something about how to interpret it.

There are a few stages in getting the scriptural author's meaning from their brain into our brain:

  1. The author’s starts with something that they intend to communicate.
  2. The author must take their intention, and put it into words. They may or may not succeed fully at this.
  3. The reader will then read and understand the text in his or her own way.

Exegesis tries to help us better at understand what an author may have meant, and how they wrote to express that meaning. To make things more tricky, we remember that the author is usually from an ancient culture, and even Joseph Smith's early 19th century culture is very foreign to us in some ways.

This means that their ways of thinking and writing will probably not be the same as ours—and may be completely foreign to us.

The historical-grammatical method of exegesis helps us to try and get a more accurate understanding of the first two stages of transmission so that the interpretation made at the last stage of transmission can be best informed.

Latter-day Saints are encouraged to seek to understand scripture in its original context. Scripture contains several admonitions to not wrest it.[1] Nephi in the Book of Mormon has to pause his quotation of/commentary on Isaiah in order to explain "the manner of prophesying among the Jews" so that his people could understand Isaiah.[2]

This suggests that we, too, may learn more if we try to understand scripture in context.

President Brigham Young stated:

Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households. You may understand what the Prophets understood and thought—what they designed and planned to bring forth to their brethren for their good.[3]

Four types of context

  1. Genre: Scripture has many genres of writing. There is legal code, historical texts, narratives, poetry, and more. Understanding the genre of scripture can help us in interpreting that scripture.
  2. History: Scripture was written at a particular time and in a particular culture. We often need a lot of tools to help us understand when scripture was written and under what cultural filters. Two useful study bibles that provide some of this are The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible and the Jewish Study Bible.
  3. Textual: A verse of scripture does not exist by itself. It is in the midst of many other verses. We should read before and after the part we are studying to understand what the author is talking about.
  4. Language: Words obviously have meaning. They can have different meanings to different people at different times. Since most scripture is written in a different language than the one we grew up speaking, we need someway to understand them. (Even English speakers may make mistakes reading the Doctrine and Covenants, since English in Joseph Smith's era has significant differences in meaning compared to today.)

A translation by an expert is only the first step. We may then need more help to understand what the translated English word might be getting at. Even English words as contained in the King James Bible (the Church’s officially preferred translation for English readers) may be hard to understand because they either aren’t in common use anymore or because they have shifted in meaning over time. Often, we are most at risk of making this kind of mistake with an English text—because we assume we know what English words mean.

An example of this problem is the word "virtue" in the Bible. In Ruth 3꞉11, we read "And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requires: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman." And in Proverbs 31꞉10 we read "Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies." With these verses we might easily conclude that the King James translators meant something like "to be chaste."

But, Luke 6꞉19 reads "And the whole multitude sought to touch [Jesus]: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all." So, did chastity left Jesus’ body after a woman touched him? We undestand better when we realize that "virtue" for the King James translators was closer what we call "power" than "chastity." The footnote at the end of this paragraph has many suggestions of tools to help.[4]

3. Read holistically

As the Lord says five times in the Doctrine & Covenants, "what [he says] unto one [he says] unto all."[5] Scripture must be read holistically. If we are to understand it, then it must be understood as a whole. This so we can understand how the scriptures complement, supplement, expand, update, retract, and/or revise each other.

To read scripture holistically, you should first have very clear in mind what topic you want to explore or question that they want answered. For instance, suppose you want to study the topic of charity in the scriptures. Next, you should try and imagine which terms touch on that topic. For instance, the scriptures contain over 600 occurrences of the words "charity," "charitable," "love," "loved," "loves," "lovest," "loving," "loving kindness," and "loving kindnesses." Finally, you could read every occurence of those words contextually (following the steps laid out below) President Russell M. Nelson suggested something like this method when he read every name used for Jesus Christ in all scripture.[6]

There may be topics that don't fall so easily under identifiable word clusters. For instance, to learn about the Creation we need to read the four creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple. We should understand that the Lord has not revealed all things pertaining to creation but will reveal them at his second coming.[7] In cases such as these, we might need other tools, some of which are in the footnote.[8]

There are also many wonderful and free resources available on-line.[9]

One should also consider what Latter-day Saint leaders have said about the passages of scripture that we're studying. The BYU Scripture Citation Index and the LDS General Conference Corpus are fantastic resources.

4. If scripture is making a scientific claim, weigh it with science

Our theology is not threatened by science. Properly understood, any truth will fit with any other truth. Scripture provides one way to learn truth, and science provides another. D&C 88꞉77-79 says:

And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are. Things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms

Science can, should, and does support revelation on many particulars. We should welcome its voice to our spiritual reasoning when determining what God is trying to reveal to us or what he may reveal to us. This isn’t to say that current science will always agree with revelation or that revelation will eventually change to fit the demands of the scientific community,

But, there is no need to see revelation and science at war, nor do we need to compartmentalize our understanding of truth. Science will generally reveal God's physical laws, while revelation will generally reveal God’s spiritual laws.

At times, science will seem to not agree with scripture. This could mean:

  1. our understanding of science is incomplete or wrong
  2. our understanding of scripture is incomplete or wrong
  3. scriptural authors are not perfect, and what they wrote is incomplete or wrong.

As President Dallin H. Oaks recommended:

Religious persons who pursue scientific disciplines sometimes encounter what seem to be conflicts between the respective teachings of science and religion and must work through how to handle these apparent conflicts. Others, such as I in my pursuit of business and law, can be less troubled. For me, that detachment ended when I was appointed president of Brigham Young University. This new position required me to search out, learn, and articulate answers to questions I had previously been privileged to ignore....

Colleges and universities must of course teach science—facts and theories—but Church educators, like the BYU faculty, refrain from substituting science for God and continue to rely on the truths of religion. In the study of science, teachers and students with religious faith have the challenge to define the relationship of science and religion in their thinking. They have the special advantage of seeing countless scientific evidences of the Divine Creator. In those exceptional circumstances where science and religion seem to conflict, they have the wisdom to wait patiently in the assurance that truth will eventually prevail. In doing so, most conclude that religion does not have the answers to all questions and that some of what science "knows" is tentative and theoretical and will be replaced in time by new discoveries and new theories.

Some try to deal with apparent conflicts by compartmentalizing science and religion—one in one category, such as Monday through Saturday, and the other in another category, such as Sunday. That was my initial approach, but I came to learn its inadequacy. We are supposed to learn by both reason and revelation, and that does not happen when we compartmentalize science and religion. Our searchings should be disciplined by human reason and also enlightened by divine revelation. In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion....

Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith. But those who do so must guard against the significant risk that efforts to end the separation between scientific scholarship and religious faith will only promote a substandard level of performance, where religion and science dilute one another instead of strengthening both.

For some, an attempt to mingle reason and faith can result in irrational scholarship or phony religion, either condition demonstrably worse than the described separation. This danger is illustrated by the case of an international scholar who was known as an expert in English law when he was in America and as an expert in American law when he was in England. Not fully distinguished in either field, he nevertheless managed to slip back and forth between the two so that his expertise was never properly subjected to qualified review in either. As a result, he provided a poor imitation in both. A genuine mingling of the insights of reason and revelation is infinitely more difficult....

Each of us should pursue...truth by reason and by faith. And each of us should increase our ability to communicate that truth by an inspired combination of the language of scholarship and the language of faith.

I am confident that when we progress to the point where we know all things, we will find a harmony of all truth. Until that time, it is wise for us to admit that our understanding—in religion and in science—is incomplete and that the resolution of most seeming conflicts is best postponed. In the meantime, we do the best we can to act upon our scientific knowledge, where that is required, and always upon our religious faith, placing our ultimate reliance for the big questions and expectations of life on the eternal truths revealed by our Creator, which transcend human reason, "for with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37).[10]

How can one approach apparent contradictions in scripture?

Not every scriptural passage agrees with every other. At times, there can even be what seems like a direct contradiction.

There seem to be historical contradictions in scripture

Some of the seeming contradictions in scripture may be termed historical contradictions.

  • The Death of Judas: Did he die by hanging (Matthew 27:5)? Or did he fall headlong and have his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Academic attempts to harmonize these two passages ceased at least as early as the late nineteenth century. Scholars today generally see both accounts as irreconcilably contradictory.[11]
  • Jesus Calming The Sea: The Gospels differ in the succession of events when Jesus calms the storm at sea. In the Matthean account, the Lord chastises his apostles for not having enough faith and then calms the storm whereas in the Markan and Lucan accounts he calms the storm and then chastises his apostles. The Johannine account lacks the story.[12]
  • The name of Moses’ Mountain: The [five books of Moses] differ ... in [their] naming of the mountain from which Moses received the Ten Commandments. In some instances it is "Horeb" (Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Deuteronomy 1:2; 4:10) and in others it is "Sinai" (Exodus 19:1–2, 11, 18, 20, 23; 34:2, 4, 29, 32; Numbers 3:1, 4, 14). This is one of the reasons that many scholars see the Pentateuch}} as the composition of multiple authors/redactors.
  • The Timing of the Savior's Crucifixion: The Gospels differ in their timing of the crucifixion of the Savior. Was it during Passover? Before Passover? Or after Passover? Scholars believe that the difference is ultimately irreconcilable, and one simply must choose which account to believe.[13] Generally, Mark is favored since it is considered the earliest to be authored.[14]

There seems to be theological tensions/contradictions in scripture

Some of the seeming contradictions in scripture may be termed theological tensions/contradictions.

  • High Christology and low Christology: It has long been observed by scholars that the Markan account of the Savior portrays Jesus as more human—lowly, and mortal—than the Johannine account which portrays Jesus as godlike from the antemortal realm to the end of his life. Scholars generally believe that the Markan account holds what they term a "low Christology" and the Johannine account a "high Christology."[15]
  • Performing alms: How can we not perform our alms in public (Matthew 6:1) but also let our light shine before the world (Matthew 5:16)?
  • Becoming and not becoming a child: How can we set childish things aside (1 Corinthians 13:11) and become as a child (Matthew 18:3)?

The principles we discuss below might also be useful when we approach non-canonized but respected teachings by general authorities of the Church.

1. Latter-day Saints should defend scripture as much as possible

When we are able, we have a duty as Latter-day Saints to defend truth. Scripture admonishes us to always have a reason for the hope that is within us.[16]

One way that Evangelical and Catholic apologists defend the Bible is by saying that a contradiction cannot be termed a contradiction until all other scenarios that make the two or more passages in question in conflict are ruled out. For instance, "Matthew 28:2 says there was only one angel at the tomb of Jesus, while Mark 16:5 [says] there was one young man clothed in a long white garment. Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 tells us there were two angels at the tomb."[17]

Instead of revealing a contradiction, some accounts may be more detailed than others. The young man in the long white garment may just be a description of an angel that Mark decided to give. We can't say that a passage is truly contradictory until all scenarios for resolving the contradictions are ruled out. Latter-day Saints may consider whether this principle will be useful for them in defending the high authority of scripture.

2. Latter-day Saints do not believe in scriptural inerrancy

We have an advantage, however, that many Christians do not have—we do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. So, we are often comfortable saying that a contradiction is simply a mistake by one author. That said, Latter-day Saints tend to see scripture as having a high degree of authority. So we are rightly reluctant to use "it's a mistake" as an explanation.

Using the principles below will reveal how we can believe in the reliability of scripture.

3. You need to have an intelligent way to study the scriptures and understanding the nature of prophetic revelation

As we might expect, Church leaders have urged us to read scripture intelligently. The first section of this article discusses one approach for doing so.

Seemingly contradictory accounts can both be true but discussing different things.

For example, two friends, David and Michael, go the store. David can report this event to his parents as if only he went to the store: "Oh, this afternoon I went to Wal-Mart." Michael can report the same event as if only he went to the store. Both boys are equally right.

It should be remembered that the presence of contradiction in the relation of a historical event does not negate the occurrence of the event. One should focus on the essential reality of the event being described itself rather than the presence of contradictions in the relation of the event or the ahistoricity of one account of that event. The broad outlines of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses can be trusted as historically plausible.[18]

Similarly, scriptural authors may be writing from a historical perspective. Scholar Pete Enns gives the example of God’s opinion of the Assyrians: in the book of Jonah, God really likes the Assyrians and wants them to be saved; but in the book of Nahum, God destroys them. Is God contradicting himself? Or are biblical authors just writing from their distinct, historically-situated perspectives?[19] God may certainly like the Assyrians and want to save them, but that doesn’t mean that his justice won’t be brought down on them if they deserve it.

Sometimes differing and competing theological perspectives in scripture were meant to be contrasted. As the author of Proverbs tells us: "iron sharpeneth iron" (Proverbs 27:17).[20] This is one of many reasons that scripture should be read both contextually and holistically.

4. Line upon line and its two features

Citing scripture, Latter-day Saints frequently talk about how revelation comes through the prophets "line upon line, precept upon precept."[21] "Line upon line" has two features or functions:

  1. It reveals core truths over time directly to the prophet.
  2. It makes small additions or clarifications to previous revelations without threatening the core value of the first revelation. It's like reporting to one's parents that they went to the grocery store after school and then, getting futher into the conversation, reporting that one's friend also came with them.

Thus, rather than contradicting a previous passage, a subsequent passage may be complementing or supplementing the first.

5. God commands and revokes as seems good to him

In Section 56 of the Doctrine & Covenants, the Lord states:

3 Behold, I, the Lord, command; and he that will not obey shall be cut off in mine own due time, after I have commanded and the commandment is broken.
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.[22]

This scripture does not condone moral relativism. God's understanding of right and wrong will not change. But these scriptures teach that sometimes there are multiple paths to the same goal. The Lord will choose between these ways as world conditions and human choices change.

Additionally, there are times where more emphasis needs to be placed one moral end over others. There are many times when—in our quest for worthy goals—there are competing moral goods. Sometimes, our best thinking and tools do not allow us to know what is the most important moral good to achieve and how to structure our behavior.

Revelation may "contradict" itself and change as tactics and approaches need to change.

6. We are often told only enough to encourage us to repent

Doctrine & Covenants 19:6–7, 10–12 states:

Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my glory. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore Eternal punishment is God's punishment. Endless punishment is God's punishment.

Prior to this time, Joseph Smith's revelations seem to indicate that "endless punishment" might refer to something like eternal torment in a burning hell. This revelation shows us that what we know about some matters may be just enough to help us progress.

7. Apostasies and restorations can bring losses of knowledge, which may need to be restored gradually

Latter-day Saints believe in the concept of dispensations: periods of time in which God reveals his will through a prophet. A dispensation begins when God calls a prophet to receive revelation on behalf of the human family. A dispensation ends when there is widespread rebellion and apostasy. After the period of apostasy, God called prophets again.

With apostasies, knowledge about God can be lost from others. In ancient times, scriptural records were preserved on rolls of papyrus, clay tablets, and "writing-boards—flat boards of wood or ivory cut out in such a way that an inlay of wax could be written upon. The boards were hinged together to become a folding book."[23] These might not have been accessible to the next person that God deemed worthy to be called as prophet. Knowledge to that prophet would then have to be restored "line upon line" just as it was before.

8. The scriptures in question may be focusing on a specific question rather than historical accuracy

Scripture (especially the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and Book of Abraham) are often written to express a single over-riding message.

The revelation of that message may have been short. "Hey, prophet, I need you to write about the importance of charity." The prophet/author(s) of the different books of scripture may then be composing their narratives around that message. Ancient authors were often not focused on historical precision, and more on the message which events were to convey.

Authors of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon are often writing from the third person: talking about revelations received in the past by prophets and recounting them historically rather than receiving a dictated revelation in the style of Doctrine & Covenants. Scripture writers are often doing something closer to the work of historians and recounting what prophets have revealed in the past rather than doing the work of prophets and dictating revelation as they receive it from God.

WRiters may be recounting this history based off of oral tradition. Any number of potential discrepancies can arise in a text due to human error in reconstructing the history.

This may be one of the reasons that the Book of Mormon so strongly emphasizes the importance of preserving records to accurately record how God has dealt with his children.

9. Scripture may preserve moral fallibility so that we can learn from it

For example, consider the words of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf regarding Solomon:

The ancient King Solomon was one of the most outwardly successful human beings in history.[24] He seemed to have everything—money, power, adoration, honor. But after decades of self-indulgence and luxury, how did King Solomon sum up his life?
"All is vanity," he said.[25]

This man, who had it all, ended up disillusioned, pessimistic, and unhappy, despite everything he had going for him.[26]

[. . .]

Solomon was wrong, my dear brothers and sisters—life is not "vanity." To the contrary, it can be full of purpose, meaning, and peace.

The healing hands of Jesus Christ reach out to all who seek Him. I have come to know without a doubt that believing and loving God and striving to follow Christ can change our hearts,[27] soften our pain, and fill our souls with "exceedingly great joy."[28][29]

We notice that Elder Uchtdorf 1) declares Solomon wrong; and 2) uses scriptures to establish what he believed was the correct view. Indeed, Elder Uchtdorf uses many scriptures that contradict Solomon's view. But another important element of this is that Elder Uchtdorf didn't state that Solomon was wrong for expressing the view or that the scripture wasn't inspired for having a "wrong" view. Rather, he used Solomon's downtrodden state to illustrate an important principle of life.

Thus, there may be errors of perspective on doctrine and not doctrine itself in the scriptures.

10. There’s a difference between a contradiction and a paradox

A contradiction is making a claim and then denying it: stating X and then denying X. If I say that God will judge justly and God will not judge justly, I am contradicting myself.

A paradox is making a seemingly contradictory statement but it’s actually just affirming two propositions that can both be true simultaneously: affirming X and then affirming Y. If I say that God will judge us justly and that God will judge us with mercy, that might be a paradox (mercy by definition gives us more than justice says we deserve), but both can still be true.

Reflecting on these paradoxes may teach us something important that either truth alone would not.

11. Further revelation from modern prophets may resolve other contradictions in scripture

One of the glorious messages of the Restored Gospel is that the heavens are still open and God still speaks to his children through living prophets. We know that prophets can provide future revelation to resolve uncertainties or seeming contradictions in scripture.

One example of this principle in action may be how the Doctrine & Covenants resolves a contradiction in the Bible. In Exodus 33:11 it is affirmed that "the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Just nine verses later, Exodus 33:20 says that: "Thou [referring to Moses] canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." As an even starker contrast from 33:11, John 1:18 affirms that "[n]o one has seen God at any time." 1 Timothy 6:16 (NIV) gives praise to the God who "alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."[30]

Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 reads "And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." These verses seem to suggest that without the power of godliness intervening and helping man to take in God's glory, no man can see God the Father. This passage makes sense of much of the others from the Bible and may be seen as revelation clarifying previous revelation and resolving an apparent contradiction.

12. There may be ideological purposes behind contradictions

There may be certain ideological purposes behind certain contradictions. For instance, some have proposed that David's slaying of Goliath may have actually been done by a man named Elhanan. The contradictions exist, some scholars propose, because writers either wanted to undermine or shore up David's credibility and legitimacy as king of Israel.

Assuming that this is true and that Elhanan was the one that actually killed David (just for the sake of argument), we can extract a several principles that may help us to understand how to deal with these types of contradictions/tensions:

  • It may be that one of the writer's position came via revelation from God and the other(s) writer's did not. It may be that the other writer is trying to undermine the first writer's position by arguing against it.
  • It may be that neither of the writers' positions came via revelation from God but that they were trying to do something good nonetheless. In this example and assuming that it is true, shoring up David's credibility/authenticity as king of Israel may have actually been a good thing, but the writer that credited Goliath's death to David was doing it the wrong way. One could assume the opposite: that Elhanan was credited with the death of Goliath wrongly but not for a nefarious purpose. We don't necessarily have to see the disagreement as something nefarious.
  • The best way to tell which writers' position came from God may be to read the rest of the scriptures and find if other authors agree with one of the writers. Perhaps if more writers agree with one over another, then we can take that position as the true/correct one. Scripture returns to the theme of establishing God's word in the mouth of two or three witnesses many times.[31]
  • It may not be necessary to find consensus nor synthesize. In this case of David/Elhanan, perhaps we can just take the disagreement and find it to be an interesting aspect of the Bible. There isn't anything major at stake in believing that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath. At most it just means that a tradition about David or Elhanan is wrong. It doesn’t change the more important fact that David was the king of Israel and that the Savior descended from David. The same principle could apply to other controversies: perhaps we needn't worry if there’s a contradiction.
  • We can know that something more important is at stake when the controversy in question centers around a moral/ethical question. Believers are more interested in knowing how to be a good person in the eyes of God. They need clear communication in knowing how to do that. They don't need to fret about every historical controversy about scripture.

13. Scripture can still be instructive and valuable as scripture even when it contains contradictions

This is especially true when dealing with mere historical contradictions rather than moral and theological ones, but scripture can still be instructive and valuable as scripture even when it contains contradictions.

Scholars have argued, and not without merit (and also not without some informed pushback), that the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt in Genesis 37:18–36 can actually be divided into two separate, unified narratives about how Joseph was sold. There seem to be narrative hiccups as one reads the story as currently contained in the Bible and this can be resolved by disentangling the two accounts. Verses 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 31–35 can function on their own as one account and the rest of the verses—18, 21, 22, 24–25, 28, 29–30, and 36—can function as another narrative. It resolves the contradictions and clunky narrative seams that seem to be present in the current account as contained in our Bibles today.

The two accounts, however, when separated out, can still be instructive and valuable on their own as scripture and teach us true doctrine. We shouldn’t need to demand a pristine text in order to consider the it true and instructive.

Learn more

Specific alleged contradictions in scripture

Alleged contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants

How can a Latter-day Saint reconcile the opinions of biblical scholars who say that certain figures of the Bible are not historical?

Latter-day Saint scripture mentions several ancient figures from the Bible and mandates their historical existence. Among these are Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, Daniel, Noah, Enoch, Melchizedek, Jethro, and others. The historical existence of these and other figures are doubted or otherwise totally rejected by several modern biblical scholars. How can a Latter-day Saint reconcile these opinions? In this article, we aim to lay out some general principles that might help answer that question.


Historical Plausibility

One thing to keep in mind when approaching this question is that the existence of biblical characters can actually never be proven nor disproven. It can only be made more plausible or more implausible. This is the basic notion of historical plausibility.

As explained by John Gee and Stephen Ricks:

Historical plausibility relies on the aggregate of information to provide a consistent picture of events and processes. It assumes that historical conditions at a given time and place are consistent and that change over both time and place are consistent and that change over both time and place varies consistently. That is, documents and artifacts produced at a given time and place have a certain commonality that may vary as both time and place change…Documents also follow certain patterns in layout, language, script, paleography, vocabulary, genre, specificity, onomastics, and cultural referents (including governmental, social, and religious institutions and practices). To the extent that a document matches others in these areas, it is historically plausible.[32]

There are many instances in which trying to validate the historicity of these characters will be impossible given all of the archaeological and historical constraints. Take Adam and Eve—how are we supposed to verify these people’s existence? And how would someone prove a negative, that they did not exist?

Modern revelation is a valid source of knowledge

Sometimes Latter-day Saints forget (or even deliberately discard) that modern revelation is a valid source of knowledge. The majority of biblical scholars do not accept this assumption and operate only on what they can determine from the archaeological record.

Modern revelation offers strong reasons to believe in the historicity of these biblical figures. That too is a type of evidence.

Question: Was Moses a real person?


Notes

  1. ↑ 2 Peter 3꞉16, Alma 13꞉20, Alma 41꞉1, D&C 10꞉63, D&C 88꞉77-79
  2. ↑ 2 Nephi 25꞉1
  3. ↑ JD 7:333. .wiki
  4. ↑ For understanding the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the author recommends either making an effort to learning those languages or using the features at netbible.org that allow readers to click on the tab that gives the original Greek or Hebrew text, hover over the text to see the word that was translated, and then use the pop-up dictionaries. For understanding confusing King Jamesian English, the author recommends using the resources found at kingjamesbibledictionary.com. For understanding the meaning of a word in Joseph Smith's time, one should probably consult the King James Bible Dictionary (link above), 1828 Webster's Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The reason that one should consult all three including the OED is because, as Stanford Carmack has persuasively argued, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary lacks important possibilities for how Joseph Smith might have defined a word in his mind when giving us all his scriptural productions. Stanford Carmack, "Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828)," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 65–77.

    The goal of all this work is to establish that one has the superior interpretation of scripture or, in other words, the one that is most likely the correct one. Thus, one should seek for and document as much support for their interpretation of scripture as possible.

    To aid in doing exegesis, members might simply consult any one of the literally hundreds of scholarly commentaries that have been produced to interpret different books of the New and Old Testament as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Many Latter-day Saints have been benefitted in using scriptural commentaries and study bibles such as the Harper Collins Study Bible, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and the Jewish Study Bible. These study bibles contain essays at the beginning of each book to help explain authorship, historical place in canon, and historical context in which a particular book of scripture was written before allowing the reader to move forward with their study. The bibles also contain explanatory footnotes which allow the reader to see how an author is alluding to other passages of scripture as well as understand how to interpret certain verses. For Latter-day Saint scripture, members have enjoyed reading similar analytical commentaries such as Brant Gardner's Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon for the Book of Mormon; Steven Harper's Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations for the Doctrine & Covenants; and the resources at Pearl of Great Price Central for the Pearl of Great Price. One might find the resources at Book of Mormon Central and Doctrine and Covenants Central very useful.

    Another resource for understanding the geography of scripture is The Scriptures Mapped. Scriptures tend to name locations that are unfamiliar to modern readers. Two professors at BYU, Stephen Liddle and Taylor Halverson, created this resource to help know what locations the scriptures are referring to.
  5. ↑ D&C D&C꞉1, D&C 82꞉5, D&C 92꞉1, D&C 93꞉49
  6. ↑ [citation needed]
  7. ↑ D&C 101꞉32-34.
  8. ↑ One might consult good doctrinal resources such as scriptural dictionaries. For the Bible, one might consult Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible; for the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon Reference Companion; for the Doctrine & Covenants, the Doctrine and Covenants Reference Companion; and for the Pearl of Great Price, the Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion. These are great resources for reading scripture contextually and holistically.
  9. ↑ See the Topical Guide, Index to the Triple Combination, the Guide to the Scriptures, the search function on the Gospel Library app, the search function on churchofjesuschrist.org, Eldin Ricks's Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (or Gary Shapiro's concordance).
  10. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, Life's Lessons Learned (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, Co., 2011), 56-60.
  11. ↑ Kevin Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 152–53.
  12. ↑ Thomas M. Mumford, Horizontal Harmony of the Four Gospels in Parallel Columns (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 48.
  13. ↑ Frank Daniels, "When was the Passover? When was the Resurrection?" Friktech, accessed August 10, 2021, https://www.friktech.com/rel/passover.htm.
  14. ↑ James Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 1–3.
  15. ↑ Julie M. Smith, The Gospel According to Mark (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2018), 17–20.
  16. ↑ `1 Peter 3:15; see also Doctrine & Covenants 71:7–9.
  17. ↑ "How many angels were at the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection?" NeverThirsty, accessed September 26, 2022, https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/how-many-angels-at-the-tomb-of-Jesus/.
  18. ↑ Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering Challenges to Evangelical Christian Belief (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016); K.H. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2006); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2006); ESV Archaeology Study Bible (Carol Stream, IL: Crossway, 2018); Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019); John Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2013); Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015); Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007); John Welch, ed., Knowing Why: 137 Evidences that the Book of Mormon is True (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2017); Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997). For an overview of evidence for the Book of Abraham, see here. For evidence for the Book of Moses see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, In God's Image and Likeness (Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2009); Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David Larson, In God's Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2014).
  19. ↑ Pete Enns (@theb4np), "Does the Bible contradict itself? From Pete Enns. #InstaxChallenge #theologytok #bibletok," TikTok, March 27, 2022, https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdmdLFDA/.
  20. ↑ A volume built on this insight has been created for Latter-day Saints. Julie M. Smith, ed., As Iron Sharpeneth Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016).
  21. ↑ Isaiah 28:10, 13; 2 Nephi 28:30; Doctrine & Covenants 98:12; 128:21
  22. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 56:3–4. Emphasis added.
  23. ↑ Lenet H. Read, "How the Bible Came to Be: Part 2, The Word Is Preserved," Ensign 12, no. 2 (February 1982): 32.
  24. ↑ An msn.com poll listed Solomon as the fifth richest person to ever live. "According to the Bible, King Solomon ruled from 970 BC to 931 BC, and during this time he is said to have received 25 tons of gold for each of the 39 years of his reign, which would be worth billions of dollars in 2016. Along with impossible riches amassed from taxation and trade, the biblical ruler’s personal fortune could have surpassed $2 trillion in today’s money" ("The 20 Richest People of All Time," Apr. 25, 2017, msn.com).
  25. ↑ See Ecclesiastes 1:1–2
  26. ↑ See Ecclesiastes 2:17
  27. ↑ See Ezekiel 36:26; Jeremiah 24:7
  28. ↑ 1 Nephi 8:12
  29. ↑ Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Believe, Love, Do," Ensign 48, no. 11 (November 2018): 46–49.
  30. ↑ Emphasis added. For an insightful critique of the Evangelical interpretation of these verses, see James Stutz, "Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8/3 (29 November 2013). [11–26] link
  31. ↑ Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:5; Matthew 18:15–16; John 8:12–29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 2 Nephi 11:3; 27:12–14; Ether 5:2–4; Doctrine & Covenants 5:15.
  32. ↑ John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, “Historical Plausibility: The Historicity of the Book of Abraham as a Case Study,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 66.
  1. REDIRECTCommon issues in interpretation and proof-texting#Does Lehi contradict Jeremiah 7 and prove himself a false prophet?


Notes

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Latter-day_Saint_scripture/Supposed_contradictions&oldid=260915"