This post is a summary of the article “Theosis in the Book of Mormon: The Work and Glory of the Father, Mother and Son, and Holy Ghost” by Val Larsen and Newell D. Wright in Volume 56 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.
The Takeaway
Larsen and Wright argue that a number of Book of Mormon passages imply the doctrine of theosis – the ability to become like God. This includes the existence of a divine council, the implication that we can be enrolled in that same council through baptism and the Atonement, the transcendent experiences of people like Alma2 and Lamoni, and human involvement in the work and power of the divine.
The Summary
In this article, Val Larsen and Newell D. Wright work to counter the notion that the doctrine of theosis is merely a late addition from Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo period, arguing that aspects of this doctrine are present in the Book of Mormon itself. This includes the implication that God is not alone in his divinity, being joined by others in the divine council, or Sôd, including the figure of a divine Mother, the symbolism of which appears in the visions of Lehi and Nephi. Larsen and Wright highlight baptism as a covenant that brings us into that same council. They also argue that the transcendent experiences and demonstrations of divine power rendered by Book of Mormon figures suggest the ability for mortals to become like God.
Larsen and Wright begin by briefly outlining the doctrine of theosis (distinguishing soft from hard theosis, with Latter-day Saints believing in the latter variety), and then go on to describe the purported loss of that doctrine and knowledge of the Sôd through King Josiah’s deuteronomistic purge. They argue that Lehi’s story shows the fingerprints of the Sôd in his apocalyptic visions. The Spirit, for Larsen and Wright, plays a vital and consistent role in theosis, and it’s the Spirit that carries Lehi in God’s presence, which, based on a quote from Welch, makes him “functionally, if not constitutionally…one of [the Heavenly Host’s] members”. The twelve he sees descending from heaven are described as ones who will sit in judgment, a role associated with the divine. According to Larsen and Wright:
The descent of the Twelve from heaven affirms two vital truths: a) the Twelve and all of us are divine beings passing briefly through mortality, whose proper telos is to rejoin the Sôd Elohim with our divinity fully expressed, and b) the Gods develop our inherent divinity by involving us in their divine work.
Lehi’s dream also affirms the symbolism associated with the Sôd, with the sacred Tree linked with Asherah, the divine Mother. This tree represents the destination that Lehi is heading to, and from which his sons are drawn away toward the great and spacious building. Though Lehi’s dream has apparent significance for his own life and family, Nephi’s corresponding dream expands on this meaning, with Larsen and Wright connecting each person with the dream with a member of the divine family. They place emphasis on Nephi’s vision of the baptism of Christ, reinforcing baptism as a spiritual rebirth, one that, with the reception of the Holy Ghost, leads us to “speak with the tongue of angels”. Nephi’s future appearance at the judgment bar suggests to Larsen and Wright that this transformation makes us more than just angels – it makes us gods. The covenants made by those under undergoing baptism echo the covenant made by God to comfort his children and to ease their burdens.
Larsen and Wright also see hints of theosis in the experiences of later Book of Mormon prophets. As with Lehi, Alma2 is brought to the throne of God, and afterward seeks to “speak with the trump of God”. His own burial “by the hand of the Lord” speaks to his potential divine attributes. Lamoni’s comparable theophany is framed by Larsen and Wright as a symbolic narrative with each figure representing members of the Sôd. Ammon, Abish, and Lamoni’s names may themselves mean or incorporate words for “God” (with Abish’s name itself suggestive of theosis, potentially meaning “my Father is a man”). Ammon’s demonstrations of divine power cause others to believe that he is himself the Great Spirit. Nephi, the son of Helaman, shows similar power along with his brother Lehi, who are miraculously freed from prison, whose faces show a divine glow, and who converse with angels. Nephi’s will is characterized as aligned with God’s, and his death, like Alma’s, is not recorded.
As Larsen and Wright themselves suggest, “there is no reason to believe that Joseph saw theosis in the Book of Mormon when he translated the book, or that he developed his understanding of theosis from reading [it]…What he clearly states is only implied in the Book of Mormon”. Nevertheless, to them, “our understanding of theosis is made richer by these related but distinct articulations…We return to the Father, the Book of Mormon suggests, by coming to the Mother and Son, the Tree of Life and its fruit…We know them, we become like them, only to the degree that we become one with the being who is one with them, the Holy Ghost.”
The Reflection
Larsen and Wright do well to highlight the ways that the Book of Mormon is consistent with the doctrine of theosis. I find their discussion of Lehi’s vision particularly compelling as they outline the special pre-mortal status of the Twelve and the divine post-mortal duties assigned to them (the included quote above also serves as a succinct overview of their overall argument). My only question is whether those outside the Church would see those things as inconsistent with a softer theosis. I don’t see our friends in other Christian faiths particularly balking at the idea that God would grant divine strength and power to mortals and recruit them to assist in the work of salvation, without necessarily granting them status as gods. For that kind of direct, hard theosis, I think you do need a Joseph Smith to truly restore that doctrine. The ideas and parallels Larsen and Wright see in the Book of Mormon appear in comparison as pale, implied echoes, ones that might nevertheless help us better understand how theosis works and how we can slowly work toward it in our journey through mortality.
….that we know of.
At the very least their prophets saw the crucifixion in vision. They taught about the cross by revelation and in prophetic discourses. They were aware of the cross as the instrument of Christ’s execution. They knew its association with the Atonement. Apparently, even the Brother of Jared knew of the cross. They did know that salvation comes only through the shedding of the blood of Christ, whether it were at Gethsemane or Golgotha. It’s reasonable to assume they knew much more, but they did not write it down in the books that we have.
My response dealt with what Mormon wrote and cared about. Nephi saw the vision, but it was recorded on the small plates. We don’t know what was on the large plates about it, or what Mormon might have done with it. It certainly wasn’t a theme that Mormon cared about at all (and he cared about Christ deeply). As for the book of Ether, Mormon had to have read it, but he completely ignored the brother of Jared’s vision and only used the Jaredite record as an example of what a nation did to be destroyed. We only get that story when Moroni adds it. We don’t know how long after Mormon ended his plates.
Regardless of what any prophet may have seen, it didn’t become a theme that Mormon recognized or repeated. For a disciple of Christ himself, surely if it were an important part of his understanding, he would have mentioned it. He didn’t. It was something that was seen in visions, but never became important. It was important in the Old World because Jesus was not only crucified there, but the stigma of the crucifixion had to be overcome. Paul did a masterful job of turning a shame into a focus for faith. That function was never needed in the New World and so it never underlay the way the prophets dealt with the coming Messiah.
So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.
The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsSalt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916
Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.
Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder
Anthon H. Lund
First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909
I appreciate the broad scope and varied emphases contained in the impressive essay by Larsen and Wright, then reviewed and referenced here. The essay and this review are memorable contributions to the facinating and glorious theme of Theosis.
Correctly portrayed, the Heavenly Council (or Sod) is the central setting where one learns “the mysteries of godliness” () and how to know God, the Eternal Father, “the only true God, and Jesus Christ” who He has sent (John 17:3). A defining feature of the Sod is the godly hierarchy there, to be honored by all invited members.
However, I disagree with Larsen and Wright’s grammatical error of punctuation in their essay’s subtitle: “Father, Mother and Son, and Holy Ghost” and what the error infers. Of all the individuals referenced – Lehi, Nephi, Alma 2, Ammon, Abish, etc.. etc., – the Lord God(s) of the Sod are are not those individuals, but are our Heavenly Father and (by overwhelming inference in the essay) His companion, His companion, our rarely mentioned Mother in Heaven.
I sense too much of the ‘single’ “Divine Mother” (especially as the authors continuously embed Her in every mortal member of the Sod’a individual story, even subtlely conflating her with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
And, with unbecoming hubris, the authors make Her and the Son an unalterable and evidently continuing union, as joint Saviors of “her children.”
Heavenly Father – in union with his companion (our Heavenly Mother) – is one God (which can properly be titled/named Elohim); the Son is a subsequent and essential Savior and God, with the Holy Ghost as the third member of the Godhead.
The authors frequently portray the “Divine Mother” separately and in isolation from the Father. This, to me, is not the Oneness that their unity and Sealing demands. Together they are One; they are an Eternal ‘Team,’ a Unity, a true Elohim.
Other than making passing references to Larsen’s own publications, David Paulson and co-author, and to Margaret Barker’s book on the Mother of the Lord, the authors cite no scriptural references to the “Divine Mother” except perhaps in the words, “Heavenly Parents,” in the Church’s “Proclamation on the Family.”
And Larsen and Wright’s grammatical comma placements in their subtitle: “Father, Mother and Son, and Holy Ghost” is doctrinally wrong. In scripture, the Mother is never unjoined from the Father and conjoined with the Son in working out our “immortality and eternal life.” Their united “work and . . . glory” (Moses 1:39) is as a Unity and a Oneness, and NOT, as the authors portray.
3 Nephi 28: 10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;
When I visited Palenque, the sarcophagus of Pacal (the king-683 AD) had a carving of the king with a tree of life growing out of his chest. It was a belief that after the king died he would rise to be a god in the next life. (Pacal also had three small temples erected for his sons, each containing a sculpted cross within (which according to Michael Coe’s fourth addition of The Maya, bore “an astonishing resemblance to the Christian cross” p. 108.) Theosis, indeed.
The tree of life growing from Pacal is in the form of a cross. The early Spanish fathers noticed crosses, and were quite excited about that very Christian symbol. Many since have been excited as well. The problem is that in the native culture, it had nothing to do with Christianity. It was a representation of the tree of life, but the cruciform is coincidental with Christianity. The Book of Mormon people never had a clear understanding of Christ on the cross. They never dealt with a God who had been crucified and then returned to life. The God they knew in Bountiful descended from the heavens. That was the powerful Christian image in the New World.
How would you describe a clear understanding of Christ on the cross?
The context of this question is the presumed connection between Mesoamerican “crosses” and Christianity. In the Book of Mormon, we have Nephi’s revelation that he saw Christ lifted up on the cross. That is in the small plates material, and we see no evidence that Mormon paid any attention to the crucifixion until 3 Nephi when Christ mentions being lifted up on the cross. There is no Book of Mormon cross theology such as is found in Paul’s writings. The salient version of Christ that the Nephites remembered was that of a glorified being descending. That had been the long prophecy among Nephite prophets and the spectacular fulfillment in Bountiful. There is mention of the cross, but again, it never rose to anything significant that we can see in the Book of Mormon text. So, there was no Nephite tradition that could have informed the way the Mesoamerican symbol developed.