David Larsen

Theo 204—Dr. Ralph Del Colle

Fall 2008 Term Paper

Three Gods in One: Perspectives on Mormon Social Trinitarianism

“I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity,
it has been the plurality of Gods….I have always declared God to be a distinct personage,
Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy
Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct
personages and three Gods” – The Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.1

These words, spoken at Joseph Smith’s last public sermon before his untimely death, cast

a light on how the Mormon Prophet understood and taught the Christian Trinity. This and other

such declarations would form the basis of Latter-day Saint (LDS) belief and theological thinking

regarding the nature of the Trinity and the relationship between its three divine persons.

However, Joseph Smith’s public ministry lasted a mere fourteen years from the time he

organized what would be called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830

to the time of his assassination on June 27, 1844. LDS thinkers would have benefitted greatly if

his life would have been extended in order to further expound on these doctrines. Although the

LDS Church, under the guidance of Joseph Smith’s prophetic successors, has remained

considerably uniform in its teachings, there have been, and are, differences in the interpretation

of his doctrines.

In this essay, I will give a brief survey of Joseph Smith’s views, specifically, on the

nature of the Trinity and the relationship between the three persons that constitute it. While a full

understanding of Smith’s teachings on the subject would necessarily require an extensive

discussion of many underlying doctrines and principles that form a background to his thinking, I

will attempt to focus more narrowly on his views on this one topic. I will also look at how

1
Joseph Smith, Jr. in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 1976), 370.
Smith’s teachings were subsequently interpreted by LDS theologians: early follower Orson Pratt,

and modern philosophers/theologians David Paulsen and Blake Ostler. Specifically, my purpose

is to provide a survey outlining Smith’s social model of the Trinity, and demonstrate how Pratt,

Paulsen, and Ostler understand and work with this theology. While the views of all three are

largely similar, due to the desire to be faithful to Joseph Smith’s teachings, there are notable

differences which I will highlight.

Joseph Smith’s Theology

Most Latter-day Saint scholars in the field of religious studies will readily admit that

Mormonism has no real systematic theology. Although there have been and are many LDS

scholars who do theology, those looking at the faith from the outside quickly note the general

lack, especially in the past, of a systematic explanation of the faith, of creeds, or of definitive and

comprehensive declarations of doctrine.

While attempts at such do exist, and more examples have appeared in recent times, the

traditional reluctance to expound systematically on doctrine has its roots in the LDS Church’s

founder, Joseph Smith, Jr. Joseph Smith was not, in the standard sense, a theologian; nor was he

trained in biblical studies. His approach to religion was not systematic,2 and he did not intend to

be bound by creeds and traditional religious declarations. Smith claimed to have received a new

revelation from God; and not just once, but on a continual basis. For him, theology was

dynamic, fluid, and expanding.

Modern LDS philosopher Blake Ostler describes Smith’s approach:

2
Although Joseph Smith did not believe in laying down creeds or strict limitations on belief, he did believe in
teaching doctrine in a clear and “systematic” way. Perhaps the earliest attempt at expounding Mormon doctrine
systematically came in 1835 (five years after the organization of the Church), when Smith and a few other church
leaders taught and published a series of lectures called “Lectures on Faith.” Of these, they stated: “if men believe in
a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better…
We have, therefore, endeavored to present our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of
this society as a body.” The Lectures were called both “theology” and “doctrine” and were accepted as new scripture
by the Church.
 Joseph Smith was not a theologian; rather, he was in the mold of the Hebrew prophets
who delivered revelations from God. His revelations speak of direct encounter with God
rather than speculation and theology. His revelations are precritical in the sense that they
contain unanalyzed theological assumptions…Joseph Smith was not systematic in his
elucidation of religious truths. Central to the new revelations was the notion that
revelation is “continuing” or a process of growth in understanding of the divine
disclosure. There is no authoritative systematic development of Mormon beliefs. There is
no final, once and for all, statement of the truth. The search for truth takes place on all
fronts, through reason, sense experience and the insight associated with revelation.3

David Paulsen depicts him similarly:

He was neither a philosopher nor a theologian per se, nor even a biblical scholar,
although he often appealed to the Bible in support of his views. His controversial claim is
epitomized by his declaration concerning “our condition and relationship to God”:
“Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by
reading all that ever was written on the subject.”4

Joseph felt strongly that doctrine should not be based on the “philosophy” and “tradition” of men

(Col 2:8), but on direct revelation from God. He believed that the faithful should be open to all

truth, and taught that God may reveal knowledge that conflicted with centuries of tradition.

Concerning the creeds of Christendom, Smith noted:

I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints
and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which
deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas
the Latter-day Saints…are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made
manifest from time to time.5

On another occasion, he declared:

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have
some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to
come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and
say, ‘Hitherto shall thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.6

3
Blake Ostler, The Attributes of God, vol. 1 of Exploring Mormon Thought (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books),
69.
4
David Paulsen and Brett McDonald, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Anylysis and Defense of the Social Model
of the Godhead,” in Faith and Philosophy 25.1 (Jan 2008), 47.
5
Joseph Smith, as quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 264.
6
Joseph Smith, as quoted in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. Salt Lake City:
Deseret News Press, 1940), 327.
 One of the principal complaints against Smith’s theology, especially his teachings on the

Trinity, has been this lack of conformity to the Christian creeds. However, it is important to note

that creeds such as the Nicene have historically been interpreted in varying ways by various

groups. Although there eventually was differentiation in the Catholic Church between what was

an orthodox interpretation and what was not, there were often long periods when believers and

theologians could not agree upon what they meant and diverse understandings were tolerated.

Often, after a creed was announced, there was so much disagreement over its meaning

throughout the Church that another council had to been convened and another creed had to be

written to attempt to establish a clearer or more correct interpretation. Hilary of Poitiers declared

his frustration with this process:

“It is a thing,” says Hilary, “equally deplorable and dangerous, that there are as many
creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of
blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain
them away as arbitrarily. The homoousion is rejected, and received, and explained away
by successive synods. The partial or total resemblance of the Father and the Son is a
subject of dispute for these unhappy times. Every year, nay, every moon, we make new
creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those
who repent, we anathematize those whom we have defended. We condemn either the
doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one
another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin.”7

I agree with Paulsen, who notes: “If the originators and those who immediately followed could

come to no consensus concerning the meaning of the creed, it is clear that modern Christians are

not bound to a homogenous interpretation of it.”8 Why should we condemn so harshly as heresy

ideas which were once accepted as true, and only later condemned as false after much debate,

disagreement and wrangling? It is rather tragic that thinkers such as Origen made such a great

7
As cited in Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2 vols., The Modern Library (New York:
Random House), p. 688.
8
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 51.
name and reputation for themselves only after much faith, dedication and labor, only to be

condemned as spreading heresies by later councils.

Joseph Smith had no formal theological training; he attended no seminary or school of

divinity. He claimed that he was given authority to teach the Gospel by heavenly messengers and

that he was taught his doctrine by angels and by God himself. The revelations that he received

and that were recorded are the principal basis of Mormon theology.

Joseph Smith and the Trinity

Joseph Smith’s teachings on the Holy Trinity, or Godhead,9 are based on, primarily, his

revelations/visions. Instead of basing his understanding solely on scriptural depictions, tradition,

speculation, or reasoning, he claims that his descriptions and teachings regarding Deity were

based on direct, first-hand revelatory experience. In Smith’s personal history, he describes his

“First Vision” as a theophany that included a direct vision of both the Father and the Son when

he was fourteen years old. In his words:

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which
descended gradually until it fell upon me…When the light rested upon me
I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above
me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the
other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!10

Based on this and subsequent visions, Joseph Smith would teach that God the Father and God the

Son were two separate persons in a very literal way. While he would quote the Bible in support

of his doctrine, Smith claimed that his knowledge on the subject came by having personally seen

God and Jesus Christ as a separate individual standing at God’s right hand.

The “Articles of Faith,” which Joseph Smith penned as a brief statement of the Church’s

general beliefs, contain the statement: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son,
9
LDS terminology uses the titles “Trinity” and “Godhead” interchangeably, although “Godhead” is largely
preferred.
10
Joseph Smith—History 1:16-17, Pearl of Great Price, Internet Edition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, www.lds.org, accessed 11/17/08.
Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” While this declaration affirms a belief in the New

Testament Godhead, it provides no details regarding the nature of the persons of the Trinity, nor

their relationship to each other.

Smith would later provide more descriptive details regarding these issues. He declared:

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost

has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost

could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Smith believed that Jesus Christ

retained his physical body after his resurrection, and that the Father, similarly, had a glorified

physical body. The Holy Ghost, in contrast, did not have a physical body, but had only a spiritual

body. For Smith, there were two types of beings that inhabited heaven: those who had glorified,

resurrected bodies of flesh and bones, and those who had not yet been resurrected and who were

only spirits (D&C 129). Although the Holy Ghost is only a spirit, that spirit has a form. For

Smith, all spirit is matter: “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it

is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our

bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:78).

While classical Nicene Trinitarian formulations have always struggled (in my view) with

the question of how to legitimately describe the one God as three, this point was quite clear in

Joseph’s teachings, especially towards the end of his life. As cited in the introduction, he

explained:

I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity,
it has been the plurality of Gods….I have always declared God to be a distinct personage,
Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy
Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct
personages and three Gods.11

11
In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370.
Again, Smith claimed that this interpretation of the Trinity came primarily through revelation.

He wrote: “Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages

in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one preside over all.”12

While Smith was not afraid to talk about three Gods in one sense, his revelations also

emphasize that in another sense, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “one Eternal God.” While

teaching that there are both three Gods and one God may appear to be contradictory, it is

important to note how Smith used the term “God.” Paulsen outlines Smith’s usage of the term in

the following manner: “Consistent with his revelations, when Smith declares there are ‘three

Gods,’ he means that there are three individual persons, each of whom is divine. When he

affirms that there is “one God,” he means that either there is one God the Father, one perfectly

united divine community or one generic divine nature.”13

When speaking of Smith’s view of the divine unity of the Trinity, one must take into

consideration the fact that Smith did not accept the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo. For Smith, God

“organized” the world from pre-existent materials. In fact, all realities, physical or spiritual, are

composed of some form of matter—even God. Smith declared: “There is no such thing as

immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by

purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all

matter.”14 God is made up of matter—the same matter of which his creations are made. All

matter is co-eternal with God. On the issue of creation ex-nihilo, Smith said:

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they
will answer, “Doesn’t the bible say He created the world?” And they infer, from the word
create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the
12
In The Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, p. 298. An interesting comparison can be made with the early
Jewish-Christian document The Ascension of Isaiah, in which Isaiah is taken into heaven and sees the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit as three separate and visible beings. The Holy Spirit is angelomorphic and is specifically called “the
Angel of the Holy Spirit.”
13
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 56.
14
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 302.
 word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the
same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had
materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in
which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure
principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized
and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.

Because God is made of the same matter as his creations, there is no grand ontological

divide between God and man like that which exists in mainstream Christian thought. The idea of

God being “wholly other,” is not present—rather, God and man are seen as being of the same

kind. Therefore, one of the main reasons for the Trinitarian controversies that arose around the

Nicene and later creeds becomes moot in the theology of Joseph Smith. There is no real reason to

debate whether Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit can be considered “of the same substance” with

the Father if there is no real difference in substance between Creator and created. The Son and

Holy Spirit were, from this perspective, uncreated and co-eternal with the Father, at least in the

essential components of their make-up. They do not depend on the Father for their existence and

have their own distinct wills.

Outside of the charge that Smith’s teachings on the Trinity do not conform to the creeds,

one of the main criticisms of Smith’s doctrine is that it also does not conform to the basic

standard of monotheism that is a central feature of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition. It is

hard to know if Joseph Smith would have called himself a “monotheist” or not. Smith believed

that he was teaching the pure religion of the Bible, and the word “monotheism” isn’t mentioned

once in its pages. As noted above, Smith did not see any contradiction in affirming that there

were both “three Gods” and, at the same time, “one God.” While his use of “one God,” could

refer to the Father, who Smith saw as the Head who presided over the Son and Holy Spirit, the

term could also refer to the Trinity as a whole. For Smith, “one” did not necessarily refer to a
numerical value. As such, it is important to analyze how Smith understood the “oneness” of the

divine community.

Smith’s approach has often been described as a type of “social Trinitarianism” (a theory

traditionally associated with the Cappadocian Fathers and more recently with thinkers such as

Jürgen Moltmann, Leonardo Boff, and Cornelius Platinga, Jr.)—the idea that the Trinitarian

thinking must start with the reality of the three persons of the Godhead, and then establish how

they are one. The unity between the members of the Trinity is understood as analogous to the

unity that can exist between human beings, or in the Church. Although there are various theories

on what the unity consists of or how it works, many suggest that the binding element between the

three persons is their absolute love for one another. Social Trinitarianism (ST), although often

accused of bordering on tritheism, is a strong theory for accounting for the individual functions

of the persons and their interactions between each other, as described in the biblical texts.

For Smith, the ultimate divine attribute was charity, or love. Love is the quality that binds

the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one. In Smith’s view, as Paulsen notes, “No person in the

Godhead would do anything to contravene the freedom of another. Out of love for the Father, the

Son and the Holy ghost entered before creation into an ‘everlasting covenant’ to freely submit to

the Father’s will.”15 While the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct consciousness and

distinct wills, it is the Father’s will that they seek to accomplish.

A charge against this view could be to question what would happen to the divine unity if

one of the three, due to his free will, were to choose to break the covenant, disobey, or follow his

own will against the others. For Joseph Smith, this simply would not happen because of the

perfect divine love that exists between the persons. The Son and Spirit always do the Father’s

will, without coercion, because of the nature of the love they have for the Father. If they did not
15
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 62.
have this perfect love, they would not be Gods. Paulsen summarizes Smith’s views on the

immanent Trinitarian functions thus:

1. The Father is the loving head of the Trinity such that he “presides over all.”

2. Love induces and maintains the operational or functional subordination of the Son and
Holy Ghost to the Father.

3. The Son and Holy Ghost are self-existent and, therefore, have ontological equality with
the Father.

4. As a result of (1) and (2), (i) only one will is realized and acted upon in salvation history
and (ii) it is the will of the Father.16

Thus, in Smith’s view, the Father is the one Most High God, and the Son and Holy Ghost are

subordinate Gods who unconditionally love and obey the Father. By acting on the one divine will

of the Father, the three persons act as one God. This system comes under the umbrella of what

Paulsen calls “functional monotheism.”

What is the difference, then, between the Trinity and humanity? Why are humans not

divine or part of the divine social unity as well? If humans do the Father’s will, are they part of

the Trinity? These are legitimate questions that must be asked of Smith’s theology and of social

Trinitarianism in general. Joseph Smith, despite his teaching that mortals could be deified, did

see a unique relationship and qualities in the Godhead that mortals did not possess.17 Their bond

consists of the previously mentioned eternal covenant between them, their perfect love, their

unity of mind, heart, nature, and attributes—a unity that exists to an extent that is not found

between mortals. Furthermore, they are bound because of their interdependent missions—the

Father presides and is the primary Creator, the Son is the Mediator, and the Holy Spirit is the

Testator—each depending on the other for the accomplishment of the divine plan.

16
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 62-63.
17
Although humans do not actively possess these qualities, Joseph Smith did believe that they possessed them in
potentiality—humans have the potential to become like God and share in the same divine nature and relationship
that exists in the Trinity.
 Besides these factors, Smith also taught that there is “one God” in the sense that the

Trinity possesses the unique “God-nature” or set of attributes that define divinity. This divine

nature is not ontological, but consists of the attributes of maximal power, knowledge, justice,

mercy, and especially maximal love.18

This understanding of the Trinity may not sound sufficient, in the mind of modern

Christian theologians, to explain the imponderable metaphysical mystery of the divine unity. I

would suggest that the reason for the disconnect lies in the difference between the mainstream

Christian position regarding the “ontological gap” between God and man, and the essential

absence of such thinking in Joseph Smith’s teachings. The “perichoresis,” or mutual indwelling

that exists between the persons of the Trinity is not a necessary or metaphysical bond, but a unity

of love. Smith did not see the divide between God and humanity as unbreachable. For example,

Joseph saw John 17 as an important chapter for understanding this issue, in which Jesus implores

the Father: "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,

that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in

us” (RSV, John 17:20-21, emphasis mine). This passage seems to indicate that believers were to

become one in the same manner that the Father and the Son are one.

I see Smith’s teachings on the Trinity as a legitimate and superior interpretation of the

biblical texts and a system that is comparable to the models employed by some modern

theologians. It is true that his views do not fully conform to the Nicene or later creeds; however,

this was not an issue for Smith just as it was not an issue for many early Christians. David

Paulsen summarizes Joseph Smith’s view of the Trinity:

Smith’s conception of the Godhead is thus an especially robust form of [social

Trinitarianism], deeply informed by his view of love as the foremost attribute of God. It
clearly distinguishes three divine beings while giving an internally consistent and
18
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 55.
 biblically faithful account of their unity in power and decision, and in perichoresis. It
explains the sharing of power and decision making by recognizing the Father as fount of
divinity, distinct in role but freely sharing the fullness of divinty with the Son and Holy
Ghost. It explains perichoresis not through ontology, but as free and intimate
cooperation, based on love, and hence communicable to all who are willing to fully
participate in this love.

Orson Pratt on the Trinity19

It must be noted that Joseph Smith was teaching these doctrines to thousands of converts

from other Christian denominations who quite certainly had their own pre-conceived notions of

the Trinity. After the death of their prophet, Smith’s followers interpreted his teachings in

different ways. Orson Pratt (1811-1881) was one of the first Mormons to attempt to explain the

faith in systematic form, and has been called one of the “first true process theologians.”20 Orson

attempted to reconcile and explain many of Smith’s teachings that appeared to be in conflict with

traditional Christian understandings. While Pratt was generally faithful to Smith’s views, I

believe that he moved away from the essential “social” unity of the Trinity and the “monarchy”

of the Father in favor of a more metaphysical bond based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Pratt started with Smith’s premise that everything in the universe, including God, whether

physical or spiritual, is composed of matter. All particles of matter, or “atoms,” are

“intelligences.” All realities are composed of these intelligent particles. They have a degree of

free will, force, and power. For Pratt, the eternal existence of this intelligence(s) is the “great first

cause,” rather than God himself as an individual. God is made up of these eternal particles, just

as any other organized being, except that the particles that constitute God are the most superior

and most intelligent.

According to Ostler, Pratt’s perspective is properly called panentheism, meaning that

God is not separate from or independent of the universe, nor is God identical to the universe

19
My overview of Pratt’s theology owes greatly to Blake Ostler’s survey in The Attributes of God.
20
Ostler, Attributes, 82.
(pantheism). God is an immanent presence which both acts upon and is acted upon by all other

realities in the universe.21 The intelligence of all the particles of the universe is in some way

connected and God has access to all the experiences and intelligence of all realities in the

universe. God’s attributes seem to arise from the sum of all the intelligences, although he is not

identical to them. Pratt explains:

I have argued that…the Unity, Eternity and of the attributes, such as “the fullness of
truth,” light, love, wisdom & knowledge, dwelling in countless numbers of tabernacles
[organized material bodies] in numberless worlds, and that the oneness of these attributes
is what is called in both ancient and modern revelations, the One God besides whom
there is none other God neither before him neither shall there be after him. I have still
argued that the Plurality of God only had reference to the number of persons or
tabernacles wherein this one God, or in other words, the fullness of these attributes
dwells.22

The “one God” of monotheistic religion, for Pratt, seems to have been the eternal essence or

attributes that exist as the sum of all the intelligences. In my opinion, this moves well beyond

the “divine nature” aspect of Smith’s teachings. Instead of the divinity of the Trinity and the

unity of the one God being defined by the divine attributes, Pratt seems to be saying that the

intelligences from which the divine attributes are derived are the one God. The Father, Son and

Holy Spirit, being comprised of such intelligences, share the same essence, or the Intelligence of

God. The universal “God” is the essence/qualities/attributes exemplified in the particular “Gods”

who comprise the Trinity.23 In Pratt’s words:

Each part of this substance is all-wise and all-powerful, possessing the same knowledge
and truth. The essence can be divided like other matter, but the truth that each possesses
is one truth, and is indivisible; and because of the oneness of the quality, all these parts
are called ONE God. There is a plurality of substance, but a unity of quality; and it is this
unity which constitutes the one God we worship. When we worship the Father, we do not
worship merely his substance, but we worship the attributes of that substance.24
21
Ostler, Attributes, 84. Ostler notes that Pratt’s theory is strikingly similar to that of later process theologian Alfred
North Whitehead (1861-1947).
22
Orson Pratt letter to Brigham Young, 4 Nov 1853, postmarked Washington D.C., Church and Family History
Archives, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT, as quoted in Ostler, Attributes, 84.
23
Ostler, Attributes, 85.
24
Pratt, “The Holy Spirit,” Millenial Star, (Oct. 21, 1865): 308, emphasis in original.
The eternal nature of God, then, is due to the eternal existence of the intelligent particles of

which each Person is comprised. “God,” for Pratt, is more of a title referring to the synthesis of

the infinite eternal particles—the attributes of Deity. Ostler summarizes this perspective:

[Pratt] referred to “gods” as individuals who have reached a divine status or position, i.e,
the status of participating in the fullness of the divine experience of all the atomic
particles that constitute the material universe. Rather than being an exception to the laws
that apply to all intelligences, God is their chief exemplification: “This [divine]
substance, like all others, is one of the elements of material or physical existence, and
therefore subject to the necessary laws which govern all matter.”25

Following the teachings of the Prophet, Pratt believed that the Father and Son, as

corporeal beings, are limited temporally and spatially, but that the Holy Spirit is not limited in

this way. However, as far as I can tell, Pratt took his speculation on this matter far beyond

Smith’s teachings. Although Pratt recognized the Holy Spirit as an individual personality

possessing a spirit body—as described by Smith--the Holy Spirit is also, in some way, the

universal essence or “fluid” (Pratt’s term) which provides the spiritual unity of mind, power, and

knowledge that allow the particular Gods to be one God. This “fluid” or spirit essence is the

Intelligence that fills the immensity of space and connects all the intelligent particles,

participating in their intelligence and experience, and governing over them. Because of the

immanent presence of the Holy Spirit throughout the universe and in all realities, God (and by

extension, the particular Gods), is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. God knows all

things and does not progress. On the dual nature of his use of the Holy Spirit, Pratt explained:

The Holy Spirit, therefore, must be considered, first, as an inexhaustible quantity of pure
living, intelligent, powerful Substance, diffused through all worlds in boundless space
and capable of filling myriads of tabernacles, and consequently, of assuming their forms.
And secondly, parts of this Holy Spirit exist as a Holy Being who constitutes the third
person of the Trinity, and who is of the same mind and will as the Father and Son. The
diffused Substance of the Holy Spirit has also the same mind and will as the three

25
Ostler, Attributes, 85-86.
 glorious persons of the Godhead; and by their united will, this diffused substance
executes the grand and magnificent operations of nature.26

While the Holy Spirit is a being--the messenger sent by the Father and the Son—“He was also

accompanied by and surrounded by a large quantity or cloud of that holy spiritual Substance

which is also called the Holy Spirit, and which, from its diffusive nature, is capable of entering

into, and abiding in many tabernacles at the same instant…”27

Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith, rejected Orson Pratt’s theories on the

Trinity. Young’s criticism of Pratt was based on his understanding of Pratt’s doctrine as worship

of the divine attributes rather than the person of God. Furthermore, he objected to Pratt’s notion

that God was static—that He knew all things and could not progress. Young believed that God

could progress eternally because the body of truth is infinite and infinity cannot be limited, and

thus, cannot be fully encompassed. Pratt rejected Young’s idea that God was a man who had

evolved into God and who could progress forever in power and knowledge. However, as Ostler

notes, a significant part of their disagreement likely arose from the differences in their use of the

term “God.” Young was adamant that “God” was a name that referred to the person who is God,

while Pratt saw “God” as a title that encompassed the essential divine attributes possessed by the

one, universal “God.”28 In the end, the disagreement led to an official denunciation by the First

Presidency of the Church of several of Pratt’s theories.

While I think Young was probably too harsh on Pratt and didn’t fully understand the

nuances of what Pratt was trying to say, I cannot fully agree with Pratt either. I think his theology

regarding the Trinity could likely fall into the category that Brian Leftow calls “Group Mind

Monotheism,” which describes the unity of the Trinity as a shared mind. “Group Mind”

26
Orson Pratt, The Essential Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 207.
27
Ibid., 206.
28
Ostler, Attributes, 87.
monotheism accepts that there are three distinct divine persons, but that they share one mind,

which is God, or the mind of the one God, or that there is a fourth divine mind.29 This, in my

opinion, does not fit Smith’s teachings. It does not fit the social model of the Trinity, which

emphasizes the distinctness of the three persons and lack of metaphysical bond. It also seems to

suggest that there is fourth “member,” or a quaternity—the intelligent substance that precedes the

divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that indwells them. Furthermore, the idea that the

Holy Ghost is composed of the substance termed Holy Spirit seems to negate the need for him to

exist separately, unless Pratt sees the Holy Spirit substance as unable to act for itself until it is

organized into a being. In the end, I believe Pratt was a brilliant thinker who felt free to speculate

and move beyond Joseph Smith’s ideas; however, in doing so he did not adhere to the same

social model of the Trinity that Smith taught.

My purpose in including this overview of Pratt’s theories and Young’s rejection of them

is to demonstrate the fact that not all of Smith’s followers understood the Trinity in precisely the

same way that he did, and that while Smith’s social model of the Trinity was the norm in

Mormon theology, different perspectives have and do exist. On this note, I now turn to two

modern systematic works by LDS philosopher/theologians which focus on the social Trinitarian

model.

David Paulsen’s Analysis and Defense of the Social Model of the Godhead

David Paulsen, professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, has been a prolific

supporter of Joseph Smith’s theology and of the social model of the Trinity. This overview of his

thoughts on the issue is taken primarily from his recent article, written together with Brett

McDonald, for Faith and Philosophy, entitled “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis of the

Social Model of the Godhead.” In this article, Paulsen (and McDonald) mounts a defense of
29
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 57.
social Trinitarianism (ST), analyzes Smith’s views, demonstrating how they accord with the

general model of ST, and demonstrates how Smith’s views can contribute to the present

discussion amongst proponents of ST. While Paulsen adheres quite strictly to his interpretation

of Smith’s thought without venturing much into his own speculations, his views are instructive,

especially since he makes comparisons to and challenges the perspectives of both social

Trinitarians and those who oppose the model.

To begin, Paulsen outlines his defense of ST as an appropriate model for understanding

the nature of the Trinity. He then attempts to answer two of what he sees are the major

challenges to ST, namely the Monotheistic Criticism and the Christological Criticism. I provide

here a brief overview of Paulsen’s responses to these challenges.

While it is not identical, Paulsen notes that the monotheistic criticism is often expressed

in terms of its corollary, the accusation of tritheism. This charge of tritheism is rather ambiguous,

as it is expressed in several manners: the belief in three gods, no matter how the idea is

understood; the idea of three different Beings, each of whom “happens to be” divine; or the

inappropriate expression of unity among the three persons.

Paulsen argues that all of these charges of tritheism are “historically imprecise”30 in the

context of the Trinitarian controversy of the early Church. Citing the perspectives of Cornelius

Platinga, a contemporary proponent of ST, and J.N.D. Kelly, Paulsen explains that the main ante-

Nicene extreme positions were that of modalism, the belief in only one person, and Arius’

position that there were three “ontologically graded” distinct persons (e.g., the Son was created

ex nihilo by the Father and cannot have communion with Him). The original sense of tritheism,

the sense that was rejected with the condemnation of Arius, was not the view that “God”

includes three distinct persons.

30
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 48.
 Leftow’s further argument is that ST has a hard time explaining how it counts as

monotheist. Paulsen notes that the Scriptures declare that “one” God rules in the heavens, yet

Jesus Christ is recognized as God as well as the Father. Thus, the “one” should be understood in

functional rather than in numeric terms.31 The demand that the Trinity must conform to “strict

Jewish monotheism” is, according to Paulsen, inappropriate in view of recent historical and

biblical scholarship. Recently, the Jewish monotheism has become more ambiguous, as Paulsen

explains:

In particular, Jewish views were not uniform; there was a diversity of views about God
and God’s relation to the “sons of God” and other divine beings in Second Temple
Judaism. Which Jews does Leftow have in mind? Jews of the Second Temple era like
those who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and accepted an entire council of gods and divine
beings like Michael? Modern Jews who reject the incarnation of the Son of God? First-
century Jews, of whom Jesus said, “Ye neither know me, nor my Father”? If pre-
messianic Jews, is it preexilic Jews or postexilic Jews? If the response is “all of them,”
this proves extremely problematic…[S]cholars remain less than certain whether the
religion of ancient Israel can even be called “monotheistic” and if it can, just how that is
the case.

As a student of the Second Temple period and its literature, I heartily agree with Paulsen on this

point. What do we make of texts like 3 Enoch, which describe Enoch-Metatron as a divine being,

to the point of addressing him as the “lesser Yahweh” and describing him as sitting on a throne

in heaven that is made after the fashion of God’s own throne? Or, as another example, we have

the Jewish-Christian text known as The Ascension of Isaiah, in which the prophet is taken up to

the highest heaven and beholds the Great Glory and is shown the Beloved standing on his right

hand and “the angel of the Holy Spirit” on his left? He is commanded to worship the Son and

Holy Spirit and then joins them in worshiping the Father. Should we likewise accuse these early

Jewish and/or Christian authors of not being monotheistic?

31
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 49.
 Paulsen, then, dismisses the charge of non-monotheism and essentially equates a

legitimate charge of tritheism with Arianism, which he notes is really the Christological

criticism. He argues that if ST is to avoid the Christological criticism, it must affirm that (1) the

Son is uncreate and eternal and (2) that the Son is fully God. He believes that ST does fulfill

these requirements, and especially so in light of Joseph Smith’s teachings. As noted previously,

Smith taught that both the Son and Holy Spirit are uncreated and eternal and that they are both

fully God in the sense that they possess the necessary attributes of Godliness in the their fullness.

Moving away from defensive argumentation, Paulsen insinuates that Latin descriptions of

the Trinity fail to do justice to the Biblical witness of Jesus’ physical resurrection. This is an

important issue for Paulsen, as he sees it as evidence for the necessity of the ST model. From his

perspective, and from Smith’s, the Biblical texts present Christ as resurrected with his physical

body and give no reason to believe that he would relinquish his body. “We have noted,” Paulsen

states, “in the academic arena, a lack of integration between the doctrine of the bodily

resurrection of God the Son and theological models of the Trinity.” Many proponents of

traditional models of the Trinity insist that because God is not located in space and has no spatial

properties, one Trinitarian member cannot be distinguished from another.32 Paulsen argues that

the physical resurrection of Christ negates this view:

To remain consistent with the biblical witness Christian theologians must maintain a Son
whose spirit possesses a distinct physical body…[It] seems that Jesus’ spirit, once
reunited with his body through resurrection will not and cannot be separated from his
body. If Jesus’ body is not the Father’s body and Jesus’ spirit will forever inhabit his
body, it seemingly follows that the Father and the Son are not one identical Spirit. Thus,
if Christianity maintains (as it has historically) that God is a Spirit, then the Spirit of the
Father must be distinguishable form that of the Son because one inhabits a body eternally
that the other does not. For adherents of ST, the resurrected Son seems to necessitate the
real ontological distinctness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Indeed, any attempt to

32
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 59.
 identify the oneness of the Trinity through ontology seems incoherent in the face of
Jesus’ physical resurrection.33

While ST is capable of overcoming the charges leveled against it, Paulsen identifies two

obstacles that proponents of ST struggle with and lack consensus on: the division of

power/decision making and the perichoretic indwelling of the Trinitarian persons. Again,

Paulsen feels that these problems can be resolved by recourse to the teachings of Joseph Smith.

As I have previously outlined Smith’s views on these matters, I will not fully restate them here.

Briefly, Paulsen sees Smith as teaching that although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do

not depend on one another for their existence and each has his own separate and distinct will,

there is no conflict between their wills, as both the Son and the Spirit, out of their perfect love for

the Father, are committed to always doing the Father’s will. As for the issue of divine

indwelling and unity, Smith taught that the Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father in the

same manner that Christ was to be “in” the faithful, as described in John 17. Their unity is

secured by their perfect love for one another, a love that they want all mankind to share in.

I find Paulsen’s arguments to be well-articulated and persuasive. While I have not had the

space here to fully present all of his arguments, I believe he successfully defended the model of

ST as a legitimate theory of the Trinity, both by defending it from criticisms and by sorting out

what some see as internal inconsistencies in the model itself. Furthermore, he demonstrated how

Smith’s teachings fit the ST model and that Smith’s is a superior and especially effective form of

ST, one that can contribute important insights for resolving concerns about the accuracy of the

model.

Blake Ostler’s Systematic Theology of the Godhead

33
Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 59.
 Blake Ostler’s three-volume series, entitled Exploring Mormon Thought, is one of the

most extensive and comprehensive attempts to do a systematic theology of Mormon doctrine

using “the language of contemporary analytical philosophical theology.”34 In his third volume,

Of God and Gods, Ostler expounds on “the distinct Mormon view of divinity as it is expressed in

the unity of the Godhead consisting of a plurality of divine persons.”35 He attempts to do this by

way of a “rescue operation to save the heart of God’s revelations to the Hebrews from the Greek

mind.”36 I cannot go into a full treatment of this vast work, so I will focus on his thoughts

regarding the ST model and highlight some of his most distinctive arguments.

Ostler begins by focusing on the fact that traditional Trinitarian models have been limited

because they ignore the fact that the Bible informs us of other divine beings besides God,

including those who can be called God’s sons and daughters.37 For Ostler, Smith’s views on the

plurality of Gods are right at home with the most ancient traditions in the Hebrew Bible,

specifically the notion of the divine council and its plurality of divine beings. Drawing on

Smith’s King Follett Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove, Ostler summarizes the Prophet’s

teachings on these ancient traditions:

(1) The creation occurred by organizing the world not “from nothing” but from
preexisting matter.
(2) There was a grand council consisting of a plurality of gods in the beginning of the
creation of this earth.
(3) There was a head God who presided over the council of gods.
(4) The council of gods, under the direction of the head God, appointed one God to
preside over us in the work of creation and redemption.
(5) Among these gods in the pre-earth council were intelligences who existed eternally
without creation before they became mortal.
(6) Humans have the potential to be gods because they are the same kind as God.38

34
David Paulsen in Ostler, Attributes, Forward, xv.
35
Ostler, Of God and Gods, vol. 3 of Exploring Mormon Thought (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008), 1.
36
Ibid., ix.
37
Ibid., 258.
38
Ibid., 3.
 While these ideas are certainly heterodox by the standards of the mainstream Christian

perspective, Ostler believes that they find support in the biblical texts, especially in light of more

recently discovered ancient Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts from Ras Shamra and the

subsequent reassessment of Israelite beliefs in biblical scholarship.39 Related to these principles

is the Second Temple Jewish belief, made apparent in recent scholarship on the literature of that

period, that there is a Most High God and that he operates through a “chief agent” or “primary

vizier” who represents him and who rules over the other divine beings, the hosts of heaven.

It is in this light that we can understand the relationship between the Father and the Son

and how it is explainable by the ST model. The Father is the head of the council and Father of

the other gods, and the Son (who would be incarnate as Jesus Christ), was the Father’s chief

agent, who was chosen by the council to effectuate the Father’s plans for the creation of the earth

and the redemption of mankind. The Son was to be the Old Testament’s Yahweh,40 the God of

Israel, as described in Deut 32:8-9 (RSV), where the Most High God divided up the nations

among the sons of God, and Yahweh was given Israel as an inheritance. As were the other gods,

Yahweh was co-eternal with the Most High God, being likewise uncreated. According to Ostler,

Psalm 82 describes Yahweh, the Son, as assuming governance over the entire world when the

other sons of God, who had been appointed as gods over the other nations, were made mortal.

In the New Testament, a knowledge of this tradition is assumed. Jesus is called “son of

the Most High” (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; 1:32, 35). He is never called “son of the Lord (Yahweh),”

nor is he identified as being “the Highest”—a title which seems to be used uniquely for the

39
Ostler, Of Gods, 3.
40
In this reconstruction of ancient Hebrew religion, El is the Most High God, while Yahweh is the name given to the
God of Israel who interacts with the prophets, who is actually one of the sons of El and Captain of the heavenly
hosts. Yahweh, who is El’s chief agent and respresentative, is incarnate as Jesus Christ. The reason why this
relationship is not readily apparent in the Old Testament is due to a consolidation of the belief in the two deities into
one—El and Yahweh are fused into one God.
Father. John 1:1 seems to have the pre-creation divine council in mind when it declares that the

Word was with (the) God and the Word was (a) God.

The Mormon view is more in accordance with the ancient Israelite belief that there

existed other gods besides the Lord, who form the divine council but who are nevertheless

subject to the Lord’s kingship—a view that Ostler identifies as “kingship” or “monarchical”

monotheism.41 On this topic, Ostler cites Peter Hayman:

Who were the angels and the archangels, the Cherubim and Seraphim, Satan, Azazel and
Mastema? The Hebrew Bible is quite clear on the fact that these figures belong to the
class of divine beings [bene ‘elohim/bene ‘elim: ‘sons of God’ or ‘gods’], members of the
‘host of heaven’ [saba hashamim]. Yahweh belongs to this class of beings, but is
distinguished from them by his kingship over the heavenly host. However, he is not
distinguished from them in kind of being.42

Ostler sees this kingship monotheism model as a denial that there is a God who is sui generis or

the only being who can be properly referred to as “God.” There seems to be considerable

evidence that the Hebrews, Second Temple Jews, and first-century Christians had the custom of

using the term “god” both as the name/title of the Supreme Being and also to legitimately refer to

lesser divine beings. While some first century Jews, such as Philo, still freely used expressions

like “second god,” this usage was later dropped as Judaism came into conflict with the Christian

theology of the Trinity. 43 It is ironic that while the Rabbis condemned Christian theology as

polytheistic, the Christians tried to bring their doctrine of the divinity of the Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit into agreement with the Rabbinic view of the Shema.

I appreciate Ostler’s research into this background material, as I feel that it is necessary to

our understanding of how the Jews and Christians would have understood and used the term

“God” or “gods.” It seems clear to me that many in this period would have no problem seeing

41
Compare with Paul Tillich’s description in Systematic Theology, 228.
42
Hayman, as quoted in Ostler, Of Gods, 36.
43
Ibid., 157.
Christ as a God who was subordinate to the Most High God. There didn’t seem to be a conflict,

for them, between recognizing two or more Gods and affirming allegiance to the one God.

Although many would argue to the contrary, I believe that Ostler’s claim that the only reasonable

explanation for the change in perspective among both Jews and Christians is the infusion of

Hellenistic philosophical ideas is a valid one. While traditional Hebrew thought had room for

multiple divine beings, the Rabbis and the third/fourth century Christians suddenly did not.

On this topic, Ostler provides an insightful quote by John J. Collins:

Whether we can speak of monotheism in connection with Moses is

debatable….Monotheism, strictly defined---the view that only one god exists, as opposed
to henotheism or monolatry, the view that only one god should be worshipped---may owe
more to the systematic reasoning of Greek philosophy than to “the Mosaic distinction.”44

Ostler’s view of Mormon ST is essentially the same as Paulsen’s. However, there are

some points that he explains more fully and some significant areas in which he differs. I will

briefly entertain a few of these issues.

Ostler does an excellent job of explaining the nature of divinity and how the Son and

Holy Spirit can be just as fully “God” as the Father, although they are distinct from and

subordinate to him. He starts by explaining that if one participates fully in the divine glory, then

he is “just as much a God as the Most High God.”45 As Joseph Smith taught, the difference

between humans and the divine persons is not one of kind, but one of realizing the divine love

and unity. He explains that Christ emptied himself of the fullness of his divine attributes and

possessed them only “in potentiality” while a mortal. However, he regained a fullness of his

divine glory by becoming “one” “in” the Father.46 Ostler continues:

44
As quoted in Ostler, Of Gods, 293.
45
Ibid., 274-275.
46
See Doctrine and Covenants 93.
 The Son is equally divine with the Father because he possesses the fullness of the divine
nature to the same extent as the Father. The Father may be “greater than the Son” in the
sense that the Father is greater in authority because it is always the Father’s will that is
done…The Father is also greater in preeminence and honor because the Son gives all
honor and glory to the Father. However, the Son is equal in divinity because the Father
had given everything that he has to the Son as his heir. The Son is everything that the
Father is in terms of realizing the divine nature. The same is true of the Holy Ghost. They
each fully actualize the divine nature.

Ostler’s take on the perichorectic union between the persons is rather unique and creative.

It goes beyond Paulsen’s (and, thus, Smith’s) indwelling of love and even reaches towards

Pratt’s spirit “fluid” which connects the intelligences of the members of the Trinity. Ostler posits

that the “light” of the Father is in the Son; and the light of the Son in the Father; and the light of

these two is in the Holy Spirit and vice versa.47 He compares this “light” to the idea of the

“divine energies.”48 So it is not the “essence” of the Father that dwells in the Son (etc.), but it is

the light that proceeds from each that interpenetrates the others. Because of the perfect love that

they have for each other, they are able to fully accept the light of the others. As Ostler explains:

“The light conveys a full information and knowledge and power from one to another, and they

fully share this light of total consciousness and knowledge among them.”49

Ostler pushes the idea a little further as he continues:

The intelligence, knowledge, power, light truth, or life that proceeds from God’s presence
is like a spiritual force-field that penetrates into each of the divine persons and imparts
the same spiritual energy and life to each of the divine persons. It is a spiritual
force/energy that empowers each of them with the very life and attributes of godliness.

I find this explanation of Ostler’s to be a more adequate view of the perichoresis than what

Paulsen proposed in his article. While I agree (with Paulsen) that the term is a rather ambiguous

interpolation into Christian dialogue, passages such as John 10:38 do require an appropriate

explanation of how the Father can be “in” the Son. It seems that there is something more at play

47
Ostler, Of God, 276.
48
Ibid., 414.
49
Ibid., 276.
here than the sharing of a loving relationship. Ostler provides a rich explanation for how the

Persons can interpenetrate each other—and does so without reaching past the limits of Joseph

Smith’s teachings, as I believe Pratt did.

On the topic of monotheism, Ostler flatly calls for the rejection of metaphysical

monotheism—the view that God alone is uncreated and everything else is dependent on God for

actuality.50 Ostler asserts that if metaphysical monotheism is adopted, then we must accept the

logical contradiction that Christ is both included within the unique identity of the one God but

also distinct from the one God. Ostler suggests that a different model of monotheism be adopted,

which I previously mentioned as the model called “kingship monotheism”—a view in which

Christ is seen as second only to the one God, the Father.

The question that naturally arises for a belief in a plurality of Gods is that of which God

do we worship? Do we worship only the Father and not the Son and Holy Spirit? Would it be

appropriate to worship the Son and not the other two? Ostler tackles this problem by explaining

that because the divinity of Trinity arises from their indwelling unity, the worship of one person

over another is conceptually impossible. It is not possible for any of them to be fully divine and,

thus, worthy of worship outside of the divine unity. On the other hand, we do not worship the

Trinity itself as if it were some additional reality because it is simply the divine persons acting as

one. The worship of Christ is always also the worship of the Father and Holy Spirit as one.51

Ostler goes on to clarify his position in regards to the problem of “diminished divinity,”

which charges that in ST the Trinity as a whole if fully divine but the divine persons are not. As

mentioned above, Ostler doesn’t see the Trinity itself as a possible object of worship because it is

not a separate reality from the persons—there is no “Trinity as a whole” over and above the three

50
Ostler, Of Gods, 42.
51
Ibid., 295.
divine members. Because the Trinity is not an individual or thing separate from the persons, it

cannot have a different degree of divinity.52 Furthermore, the Son and Holy Spirit are not less

divine than the Father, because they possess a fullness of the divine nature/attributes, just as the

Father does. Although the Father is the “fount” of the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit, it is

because he is the initiator of the indwelling unity and not because he possesses the divine nature

to a greater degree.

Although I have only presented here a fraction of Ostler’s arguments and ideas

concerning Mormon thought on the Godhead and social Trinitarianism, I believe he covers his

bases well and provides a convincing argument. While making every effort to stay faithful to

Joseph Smith’s teachings, Ostler also provides additional theories in answer to the contemporary

theological discussion of the Trinity. Besides responding fully to modern criticism, Ostler delves

into many useful points from Biblical, Ancient Near Eastern, and Second Temple period studies

which greatly help to illuminate the background religious thinking that preceded the Trinitarian

controversies.

Both the enormity of his work and the limited space in Paulsen’s piece result in Ostler

being able to explore a larger number of issues in greater detail when compared to Paulsen. It

would be interesting to see on what points he and Paulsen would disagree if Paulsen were to

produce a work of comparable size. From the perspective of this essay, it appears that Ostler and

Paulsen, while basing their models on Smith’s teachings, are not in full agreement on a few

points, especially on the nature of the mutual indwelling between the persons of the Trinity.

52
Ostler, Of God, 304.
Conclusion

The purpose of this essay has been to provide a brief survey of Joseph Smith’s theology

of the Trinity, including how his thoughts are comparable with the social Trinitarian model. As

noted by Paulsen, Smith’s teachings present an especially robust form of ST that clearly

distinguishes the three divine beings while explaining their oneness as an eternal covenant

between them ensured by their perfect love one for another. This unique bond that exists

between the persons guarantees that only one will will be accomplished, which is the will of the

Father.

This study further presents the ideas of three LDS philosopher/theologians: one, Orson

Pratt, who knew Smith personally, and two modern thinkers: David Paulsen and Blake Ostler.

Interestingly, the two modern thinkers are likely closer to what we understand to be Smith’s

perspective than Pratt was. Pratt seemed to feel at liberty to speculate on issues such as the

perichoresis after Smith’s death due to Smith’s rejection of the creeds and reluctance to place

limitations or strict formulations on belief. Even between Paulsen and Ostler there are

differences in interpretation and theory (again largely involving the nature of the divine

indwelling). While such differences are natural between any two theologians, and could be

especially expected in a tradition that does not have a history of systematic presentations of its

faith, what is more notable is the similarity between the two, which I attribute to their desire to

be faithful to the teachings of Joseph Smith, whom they believe to be a prophet of God.
 Works Cited

Smith, Joseph Fielding, comp. and ed. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 1940 reprinting.

Ostler, Blake T. The Attributes of God. Vol. 1 of Exploring Mormon Thought. Salt Lake City:
Greg Kofford Books, 2001.

____________. Of God and Gods. Vol. 3 of Exploring Mormon Thought. Salt Lake City: Greg
Kofford Books, 2008.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, 2007.

Paulsen, David and Brett McDonald. “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis and Defense of
the Social Model of the Godhead.” Faith and Philosophy 25.1 (Jan. 2008): 47-74.

Pratt, Orson. “The Holy Spirit.” Millenial Star (Oct. 21, 1865): 308.

The Essential Orson Pratt. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. The Modern Library. New
York: Random House.