Are Mormons Arians?
January 19, 2006

Interesting comment by Jeremy Pierce over at Matthew Mullin's blog. Jeremy mentioned that Mormons are Arians. Now I understand why some might think that. Clearly Mormons have trouble with the Trinity. Although as I've argued many times, I think that our problem is less with the Trinity proper than actually creation ex nihilo. Most Mormons who criticize the Trinity unfortunate confuse it with modalism. (Start interrogating your typical Mormon when they attack the Trinity and you'll quickly realize they're actually attacking modalism) Now as I said earlier I do think people can accuse us of being semi-Pelagian. But I think the Arian charge is a little more problematic. There are definitely parallels, but the differences are pretty important. Certainly we don't fit into the debate Arius had.

Now I should add, as a bit of a tangent, that I'm not sure trying to fit Mormons into the theological debates of late antiquity and early medieval periods makes a whole lot of sense. The context is too different. But, to be fair, some Mormons have attempted to co-opt the positions of early Church Fathers on such topics as deification, also perhaps de-contextualizing them. So I suppose we can say that if the language of these heresies can be applied to Mormons that then the language of the Fathers on other theological matters can equally be applied to Mormons. i.e. no double standards. My own preferences is that these labels and categories distort as much as they inform.

Anyway, on to Arius.

Arius, as I understand it, made several claims. (1) Only God (the Father) was eternal. (2) God because of his infinite nature couldn't appear on earth. (3) God created Jesus out of nothing. (4) God and Jesus are of different natures. (5) Jesus is son by adoption. (6) Jesus was subordinate to God.

(Feel free to correct me - I'm doing this quickly and without a lot of research not to mention while being at work!)

Of these, Mormons reject all of them except perhaps (6), and even that one must be heavily qualified.

(1) Mormons believe that both the Father and Jesus are uncreated and of the same kind. Of course we also add that all people are also uncreated. So creation ex nihilo is rejected. No doubt a heresy to the folks criticizing Arius, but not the heresy Arius was accused of.

(2) Mormons believe that God the Father is embodied like Jesus and does appear to prophets. That doesn't mean he doesn't have an infinite nature, although once again there would be serious disagreements over the meaning of infinite, since Mormons would put some bounds on God simply by virtue of (1).

(3) Mormons believe Jesus was co-eternal with the Father. However Mormons accept a kind of creation of Jesus typically. But this isn't an ontological creation but more an organization. In the same sense that a potter can create a bow in the sense of shaping it through their power but not in the sense of creating a bowl out of nothing.

(4) Mormons typically (but not universally) believe that Jesus and God the Father are of the same ontological nature. Indeed Mormons push this if anything further than the Trinitarians do with respect to Arius. Not only do they share the same divine nature, but Mormons believe God the Father is embodied in a perfected resurrected body like Jesus is. Most (but not all) Mormons believe that God the Father at some point even took on the two natures much like Jesus did in his mortal sojourn.

(5) Most Mormons (but once again not all) believe that Jesus is literally the son of the Father. Indeed, once again, if anything Mormons push this further by suggesting this is more akin to a spiritual birth than mere creation. I should add that some Mormons do subscribe to an adoption model, but I think this is definitely a minority view.

(6) The issue of subordination is more complex, since Mormons do believe that Jesus is subordinate in some senses and not in most others. Mormons don't believe Jesus is God in a derived sense. Jesus is fully to be identified with the Godhead and has all the properties of full divinity. Further Jesus and the Father are One in many senses, even if Mormons are unwilling to commit to what senses. (Most, but not all, take a skeptical view to the metaphysical assumptions of how that oneness is best seen as one finds in the historical heresy debates) Yet in an other sense Mormons believe Jesus is subordinate in the sense that a son is subordinate to father in terms of respect and ultimate authority. The analogy is typically made to Patriarchal orders in the Old Testament. But, since the Father and Son are of one mind and one heart, that really isn't that big of a sense of subordination.

So, it seems to me that on most of the key issues, Mormons are very unlike the Arians. The one way we are like the Arians, in terms of our rejection of the Trinity, seems fairly superficial. What Mormons reject about the Trinity is some of the metaphysical baggage that tends to get associated with it. (i.e. what is the meaning of the ousia) Also some views not properly part of the Trinity but often tied to it. (i.e. is the Father embodied)

The biggest problem Mormons have with the Trinity (beyond a general distrust for metaphysics) is actually the rejection of creation ex nihilo and the idea of divine simplicity. Although on that later point it is perhaps less of a divide, depending once again upon what one means by divine simplicity.

Comments

Posted By: Blake | January 20, 2006 08:04 AM

Clark: I'm not sure whether we accept the trinity or not -- and I'm not even sure what the trinity is (tho I've written about 1,000 pages on it now). Without knowing what is supposed to be asserted in the homoousian -- "of one substance" -- I don't know whether it is asserted that Father and Son share a common essence of the kind divine like we all share a common essence of the kind human (which rather clearly allows polytheism as well) or it is asserted that they are the same thing, the same being (which reduces to modalism) or some third meaning (like material constitution). However it is parsed, it seems logically and scripturally problematic to me.

However, let me take a shot at your seven LDS issues:

(1) Arius believed that the Son was created and thus as the same order as the creation; whereas true God on such a view is necessarily uncreated. Since we reject the ontological dichotomy that is set up by this heresy, we are definitely not Arians. Christ is not true God for Arius -- but then this very dichotomy means that one and only one absolutely simple being can be God and that will create enormous (in my view insuperable) problems for any view of the trinity. So the problem resides in the very dichotomy that we reject. The Son is uncreated just as the Father -- but then so are we in some sense and that leads to the assertion that Christ is the same status as humans (which is part of the concern that led Arianism to be rejected).

2. God's embodiment is such a vexing notion -- God is not essentially embodied in a resurrected or glorified body. It seems to me that it ought to be universally recognized by LDS that the Father and the Son both obtained mortal bodies at some time and thereafter resurrected bodies and there was a time when they had neither. God was first intelligence and only in time took on a body. Until we know what an intelligence is, we don't know if God is essentially material or not. Such a view is important because virtually all creedalists believe that God can voluntarily assume a body. So if God was once an intelligence and voluntarily assumed a body then we are very similar to creedalists! The issue is further complicated by the spirit/intelligence equation. If spirits just are intelligences, it seems that we would have to believe that spirit/intelligences are matter of some sort and thus it may be that God is essentially embodied in some sort of material body spirit body after all -- like the pre-mortal Christ who appeared to Jared in Ether 3.

3. LDS must believe, it seems to me that the Father was a cooperating cause in all mortal bodies -- but what if spirits just are intelligences? Then the Father did not create the spirit body (because it is uncreated on such a view). Without knowing whether spirits are intelligences (as I believe Joseph Smith rather clearly taught) we cannot really get very far in our analysis.

4. Ditto. The Father and the Son are equally divine because they are equally united as one in love -- and divinity is the relationship that obtains between them and transforms them. The real issue is whether they have been in such a relationship from all eternity and thus divine from all eternity (as I believe) or whether they learned to be gods at some time and thus became gods after not having been gods for all eternity (as many interpret the King Follett Discourse).

5. All LDS believe that Christ is literally the Father's Son because begotten by the Father thru Mary in a way that is utterly unique among all mortals. However, I think that you are referring to the notion that the Father may have literally spiritually begotten Christ thru spiritual paternity (with a female god?) in some sense. I reject this view because it seems clear to me that Joseph Smith never taught it and it is contrary to scriptural statements of Christ's eternity. But I think that most LDS accept this view (which I believe is a cultural overbelief).

6. It seems to me that Christ is subordinate in the sense that he gives all glory to the Father and is exalted by the Father; but they are equally and fully divine. But most creedalists would accept a functional subordination -- they reject ontological subordination and so do LDS.

So it seems to me that you are right that the "Arianism" charge is misinformed and assumes that we share enough with Arius to be so classified. We don't. However, it seems that we cannot really answer the questions necessary to even know where we can map the issues.

Posted By: Jon Blake | January 20, 2006 11:20 AM

Interesting. How do you view the concept of eternal familiar progression? What will I do when exalted? Am I then a Father but not Eternal like our Father?

My father taught me an idea that seems contrary to the commonly held view of Christ in LDS circles. I've heard many times that Christ (meaning the man Jesus of Nazareth) created worlds without number. Scriptures such as Moses 1:32-33 are often cited in support of this view. My father pulled me aside one day when I was a teenager and initiated me into an idea that seems at times heretical. He said that these references are not to the individual man Jesus son of Joseph, but to a title (i.e. Only Begotten) held by many men throughout the eternities. He was saying that just as there have been worlds without number, there have been Christs without number. The "only" in Only Begotten is limited in scope to our own world.

This solved for me the improbable absurdity of being on the one world where Christ just happened to be crucified among so many others (and my wondering what kind of gospel would be taught on those other worlds where Jesus didn't suffer through mortality). This understanding also informs my understanding of the scriptures, such as Moses 5:9, which refer to Christ's eternal nature. I understand those scriptures to refer to an office in the Godhead, not to our own beloved Jesus who hasn't always been Christ.

I don't know how wide spread this belief is, but you can add that to your collection of Mormon beliefs, if it's new to you.

Posted By: David Clark | January 20, 2006 12:56 PM

Jon,

I arrived at the same conclusion, though I can't remember if someone led me down the path or if I came by it on my own. The former seems more likely but I can't remember where I would have got it.

Posted By: Clark | January 20, 2006 02:47 PM

Blake, one thing I was curious about is how you would react to my second paragraph, since I was actually thinking about your debate on LDS-Phil over Theosis. To what degree can any label from that era be applied to LDS, either positively or negatively?

I think the underlying issue is that the philosophical background that makes the debates intelligible is largely alien to us. I'd mentioned the issue of "nature" and how on earth to interpret it. But as you noted, ousia is problematic as are others. Note I'm not saying that the philosophical background is a simple neoPlatonism. Far from it. I think that the philosophical issues appear to my limited reading to be both vague and contradictory. Just that the whole approach to the question seems alien to LDS.

Jon, I think it can be taken either way - especially the references in Moses. Although I think most take D&C 88 as implying the Jesus was at least the Lord of 12 inhabited worlds. (That was a common 19th century exegesis as well) But I personally believe that Jesus is God of this entire universe. That seems the most natural fit.

Posted By: Jon Blake | January 20, 2006 05:37 PM

I had never heard of that reading. Ultimately, it seems flawed: verse 74 makes it clear that the Lord was speaking exclusively of this world (the field) and many dispensations (the twelve kingdoms). To read each kingdom as an inhabited world seems to contradict the Lord calling those who received this revelation "the first laborers in this last kingdom".

What are those other inhabited worlds taught about Jesus if he died only here? Any gospel taught there must lose much of the divinely appointed symbolism in the relationship between Adam/Eve and Jesus, if Jesus is not a descendant of Adam and Eve on a given inhabited world? Or do you hold to some variation on the multiple mortal probations idea?

I'm honestly curious how a thoughtful person reconciles these issues. I've never really had a forum to discuss this.

Posted By: Clark | January 20, 2006 05:52 PM

The 19th century view (and I'm not saying it was correct, just common) entailed that other worlds were more righteous than ours and thus had more clear revelations on the subject. Also they take D&C 88 to imply that Jesus visited each of these worlds in a manner analogous to say 3 Nephi.

I should add that I think there is a natural reason to interpret kingdom as worlds based upon verses 43-46. Verse 74 can be read as equivocating over kingdom or lining up with the common view that we're the last kingdom in terms of being the lowest or most wicked. (i.e. the common tradition that only this earth would crucify Christ) It could also be taken in terms of the order in which Christ visits. That is our world will be visited last and will culminate in the destruction of the last days.

Posted By: Blake | January 20, 2006 07:49 PM

Clark: Your point that it is difficult to apply any terms from the Patristic or Scholastic or even the modern era of thought to LDS usage is well taken. By "theosis" what the Patristics meant was quite varied (despite Mosser's claim to the contrary). However, it at least meant that we share a common life, a divine life that lives within us, in the process of sanctification or regaining the image of Christ lost in the fall. It seems to me that LDS mean at least that -- but we cannot lose sight of the fact that LDS mean at least that. Mosser wanted to reduce theosis to the notions that we share God's attributes and created worlds and engaged in divine pro-creation. My objection was that LDS also include within the meaning of deificaiton having the life, light and intelligence of God indwell within us in shared unity of life as the basis of LDS deification and he missed that aspect of LDS thought altogether. There is a shared common meaning that would justify continued usage of theosis by LDS -- but there is also a difference. Yet there is also difference between the various Patristic and early Greek thinkers is their usage of theosis, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used. However, the point is really merely semantics. My take is that Mosser simply wanted to co-opt LDS references to earlier thinkers in the tradition that note similarities to respond to the argument that LDS are not Christians., I saw his point as a political argument by which he sought to win a contested point by semantic arguments, and I don't think it makes much sense to stop using the term to appease him.

BTW I found it very interesting that Mosser's article asserting that Calvin taught theosis was contradicted by Jonathan Slater. The abstract of his rejection of Mosser's position can be found here. His argument is basically that Mosser misunderstood and misrepresented Calvin because it is not Christ's divine nature in which we participate but his human nature.

Posted By: Blake | January 21, 2006 12:58 AM

Clark: I thought that you might be interested in W. J. Walsh's dissertation at the University of Wales, Lampeter found here.

He touches upon many of the same points we have discussed here -- although I think that his primary thesis and division between mantic and sophic is not very useful and will not withst and scrutiny -- at least not as he lays it out. Still, it is interesting tho very long reading.

Posted By: Clark | January 21, 2006 07:52 PM

Thanks for the links. I find Nibley's mantic/sophic distinction rather problematic. (As I discussed in my Nibley Readings)

Thanks to the Walsh paper. I should read and comment on it a bit since I do find that distinction so problematic.

Posted By: WJW | February 20, 2006 09:41 AM

I would be interested in your comments. I am now in the process of revising my dissertation into book form for publication--a process almost as painful as the dissertation itself.

As far as the mantic/sophic distinction, I don't think of them as philosophical categories, but simply ways to generally describe a person's paradigms and the prejudices behind them. Still, I am quite curious as to what you deem problematic about them.

Posted By: Clark | February 20, 2006 03:56 PM

I'll put up a post later. I need a break from my musings on neoPlatonism as well - especially since that is primarily for my own interests and is just me sorting out thoughts. (i.e. very much a work in progress) But it's too esoteric and uninteresting for most readers. Critiquing mantic is probably a nice change, although as I said most of my problems are in the Nibley comments.

Are Mormons Arians? January 19, 2006