One
obvious possibility is that some Church members had written and requested such
a clarification. As shown in the fifth article in this series: “A Reappraisal
of the Doctrine of the Godhead Based on the Lectures on Faith,” there are a
number of passages in modern scripture in which the doctrine of the Godhead is
taught in a language that cannot be adequately explained by the current theology of the Godhead taught in the Church (e.g. Mosiah 15:1–5; 3 Nephi 1:14; D&C
93:2–4, 14; Mosiah 16:15; Ether 3:14; Mormon 9:12; 2 Nephi 31:21; D&C 20:28; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; Ether 4:12; 3 Nephi 20:35; Lectures on Faith, lecture V). It is possible that some Church members had written and requested a clarification. However in the past, whenever the First Presidency have issued a statement in response to a general doctrinal inquiry by Church members, they have made that clear enough in the statement. The fact that on this occasion they didn’t makes that scenario unlikely. Also the fact that the statement was endorsed by the Twelve Apostles as well as by the First Presidency suggests that something more serious was at play than merely responding to a general doctrinal inquiry by Church members.3
A more
likely scenario is that this statement was the culmination of a continuing and
prolonged discussion among the leadership of the Church, sparked off by the
adoption of a doctrine of the Godhead by the RLDS in 1898 based on the Lectures on Faith, but which appeared to be at variance with the official teachings of the Church.4 The Lectures on
Faith formed part of the standard works of the Church at that time, and constituted canonized scripture; but it teaches the doctrine of the Godhead in a language which appears to be at odds with the official doctrine.5
That prolonged debate seems eventually to have resulted in two major decisions by the First Presidency: The first was to decanonize the Lectures
on Faith by removing them from the standard works, which came into effect with the publication of the next edition of the Doctrine
and Covenants in 1921.6 The second was the publication of this Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve in 1916. This statement tries to explain the mystery of the Godhead by listing four possible meanings attached to the word “Father” as it is applied to the Deity in the scriptures. These are: (1) Father as literal Parent; (2) Father as Creator; (3) Father as Savior and Redeemer; and (4) Father by divine investiture of authority.
It has
never been made clear exactly how and when this statement came to be written,
and the circumstances surrounding it still remains a mystery. We can, however,
surmise some likely possibilities. The style of writing is that of Joseph
F. Smith, although others may have collaborated with him in writing it. It was
probably written by him after a long period of discussion among the leadership
of the Church concerning the doctrinal issues raised by the scriptural passages
in question, and triggered by the RLDS decision of 1898.7 Its original purpose may have been to allay the concerns felt by some of the leading officers of the Church at that time regarding the doctrinal issues raised.8 Afterwards it was presented to his counselors who approved and endorsed it. After that it was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve, who also approved and signed it. And finally it was published to the Church at large in order to forestall any future debate on the subject among the Church membership who may at some point be challenged by the RLDS doctrine.
However
if the purpose of this statement was to clarify the reasons why in the
scriptures the Lord Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as both the Father
and the Son, which manifestly it was, then it fails to achieve its objective.
None of the explanations offered in the text give the real reason for this
occurrence. Although it may be reasonably argued that the term “Father” as
applied to the Deity does carry, to a greater or lesser extent, such
connotations and shades of meaning as are attributed to it in the statement;
yet none of them constitute the real theological reason for the occurrence of
this apparently strange phenomenon in the scriptures. The real (and only)
reason is the one given in the above-mentioned article, which is summarized as
follows:
There
is a sense in which Jesus Christ is referred to in the scriptures as the Father
with respect to his spirit, the Son with respect to his flesh, and the Spirit of truth with respect to the
divine Spirit which emanates from him, and which constitutes his mind. In other words, his spirit personage is called the Father, his physical person (or tabernacle) is called the Son, and the divine Spirit which emanates from him, and which constitutes his mind, and which bears record of them, is called the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
This is
the reason for the occurrence of this phenomenon in the scriptures. There is no other. The official statement is therefore deficient as far as achieving its primary objective is concerned, which is to clarify this particular theological difficulty in the scriptures. It appears that the First Presidency and the Twelve at that time had not understood the correct doctrine as stated above. The statement is in fact doctrinally unsound. If it were to be analyzed rigorously from a theological point of view, it would not stand the test.9
Latter-day
Saints generally consider this statement to be a revelation. They assume that
when a statement is issued over the signatures of the First Presidency and the
Twelve Apostles in such a solemn and authoritative fashion, that it amounts to
a revelation. But unfortunately that is not the case. It may appear to be
impressive, but that does not make it a revelation. It is a disappointing performance
that falls below the standard to be expected from the First Presidency and the
Twelve Apostles. It is to be hoped, now that the relevant doctrinal issues have
been more clearly discussed, analyzed, and identified, that a more satisfactory
explanation will be provided by the First Presidency by revelation, in keeping
with the dignity of their office as prophets, seers, and revelators to the
Church.
─────────
Notes
1 See Messages of the First Presidency, 5:23–34; The Ensign, April 2002, pp. 13–18.
2 James R. Clark, compiler of the Messages
of the First Presidency [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft; 6 Vols., 1965–75], in his introductory note to the text makes the following observations about the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Doctrinal Exposition:
“This note by Dr. Talmage [Articles
of Faith, 11th ed., p. 53] provides insight into the possible reason or rationale for the issuance of the Exposition, yet leaves the reader to ponder as to how such confusion could have arisen calling forth this official exposition on the use of the term Father in the scriptures.
“So far as the writer of these notes has discovered,
no official explanatory notes as to the occasion or circumstances surrounding
the issuance of the Exposition have been recorded or published.
“B. H. Roberts does not mention its issuance in the
Comprehensive History of the Church.
“Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., does not mention its
issuance in his biography of his father, President Joseph F. Smith.
“The official clerk and recorder for the General
Conferences of the Church and secretary to later First Presidencies indicated
that he knew of no statement in the minutes of the presiding councils of the
Church for 1916 that specifically mentions or elaborates on the issuance of
this Exposition.…
“It is always dangerous to try to ‘second guess’
circumstances in the absence of direct evidence. The few notes and statements
that follow are not an attempt to justify the issuance of the Exposition.
Revelation from God is not established or justified by human reason, but
explanation of possible circumstances is sometimes helpful in understanding it.
“The brief notes following are a condensation of
thirty-seven pages of research notes on this Exposition.…”
3 The Doctrinal Exposition was reprinted in the April
2002 issue of The Ensign (three months after the publication of this article on my website on the Internet in January 2002), under the caption, “Gospel Classics,” with a brief introductory note in which for the first time an attempt was made to offer some kind of an explanation for the issuance of the Exposition, as follows:
“In the early 1900s, some discussion arose among
Church members about the roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The First
Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following in 1916 to
clarify the meaning of certain scriptures where Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, is
designated as the Father.” (The Ensign, April 2002, p. 13)
This explanation, however, still leaves a number of
questions unanswered: (1) Why has there been such great silence on the subject
by the Church for such a long time in the past until now. (2) What historical
evidence or data exists to support the claim that the Exposition was issued in
response to such a discussion among Church members, and why has that data never
been made available to scholars and researchers who had sought to obtain it?
(3) Why were the doctrinal questions considered of such significance that the
statement had to be endorsed by the Twelve Apostles?
4 For the complete text of the RLDS statement see
Appendix III; for the complete text of lecture V of the Lectures
on Faith see Appendix II.
5 See Appendix II. For further discussion of this subject
see the aforementioned article: “A Reappraisal of the Doctrine of the Godhead
Based on the Lectures on Faith”.
6 This was done without submitting the decision to the
vote of the Church at General Conference, see D&C 26:2; 28:13.
7 Since no official explanation was ever given by the
Church regarding the issuance of the Doctrinal Exposition, Latter-day Saint gospel scholars have
been obliged to rely on guesswork in order to uncover any possible link between
this statement and the events of the time. But to my knowledge none of them
have been able to recognize the connection between this statement and the RLDS
decision of 1898. As far as I know the present article is the first to do so.
8 This is suggested by the fact that the statement was
endorsed by the Quorum of the Twelve. As a rule doctrinal statements
by the First Presidency do not require the endorsement of the Twelve Apostles
to make it any more official. It implies possible disagreements or
uncertainties among the leadership on how to proceed, or to deal with the
issue. As it turns out, however, those who may have had the misgivings were
right. The current theology of the Godhead as understood by Latter-day Saints is not sufficient to explain the mystery of the Godhead as it unfolds in the scriptures. There is more to it than that. See my article on the Godhead previously mentioned.
9 The doctrine that would be particularly questionable
is the doctrine of the “divine investiture of authority.” Such a principle
either does not exist at all in Christian theology; or if it does, it is not
applicable to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The reason why he is sometimes
referred to in the scriptures both as the Father and the Son has a totally
different theological basis.
A comparison is drawn in the text with the angels who
appeared to John in Rev. 19:10; 22:9, who spoke in the name of God as though it
were God (also Ex. 23:20–21). But the comparison is not valid. Jesus was
already divine (1 Nephi 19:10; 2 Nephi 10:3–4; 11:7; 26:12; Mosiah 3:5; 7:27; 16:15; 27:31; 3 Nephi 11:14; Ether 3:17–18 ; D&C 19:18; 38:1–3; 39:1–2; 76:1–4). He did not need any “divine investiture of authority” to do what
he does. If the angels acted by some kind of “divine investiture of authority,”
they received that investiture from him (1 Peter 3:22; Moroni 7:29–30). He that imparts divine investiture of
authority does not himself need any divine investiture of authority to do what
he does.
