I bought Widmer's Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830 - 1915 after reading a favorable review of it at the Mormon History Association web site. (It's no longer available online) A few other people told me it was good so I purchased it in what may be my last big buy of books for a while. As I tend to do with these sorts of books I did an quick initial read followed up by a more careful reading. After my first read I thought the book was highly flawed. On my second read I thought he made a lot of good points and arguments. On my third read I noticed a few of the things he ommitted as well as a few significant inconsistencies. I'm still trying to decide if it is a good book or not.

David Paulsen, a philosopher I respect, did do a review of the book for FARMS a few years back. I only read the review recently, but it generally accorded with many of my criticisms. I'll briefly point out a few issues though that I think are fairly problematic. The first is whether it is really apt to apply fairly technical philosophical labels to writings that do not adhere to a careful vocabulary or don't make fairly unambiguous philosophical arguments. Without those, all one is doing is reading into language a particular position. To read into such texts fairly sophisticated positions from the history of Christianity in late antiquity seems somewhat misleading. It is akin to saying that the Bible is modalistic because one can read it modalistically. At first Widmer seems to agree.

"[Smith's] concept of the divine is an early 19th-century layman's interpretaion of Trinitarianism. ... Perhaps this definition was no different than the rest of the laity's, that sat in both Catholic and Protestant churches in the early 19th century." (53)

Despite this recognition, which he pays lip service to in many places, Widmer asserts that Smith had a unique form of modalism in which "God was only one being, who manifested himself in varying modes." (52) Widmer never clarifies what he means by varying modes, but one expects that they are different modes the way I can be a father, a student, a customer, and a businessman. The difficulty with this view is that Widmer never brings to the fore and explains the passages that seem to treat multiple beings within the One God. 3 Nephi is filled with them. Certainly these passages can be interepreted in a modalistic fashion, just as modalists have interpreted similar passages in the New Testament. But Widmer must explain why the prima facie reading is the correct one. Now I must in fairness recognize that Widmer says that Joseph Smith isn't consistent. He acknowledges that 3 Nephi is anti-modalistic. But why should we consider these cases simple inconsistencies rather than a manifestation of a more complex view? It is unfortunate that Widmer never really engages these opposing points of view.

Now clearly Mosiah 15 can be read modalistically. Indeed that's a rather plain reading of it. However an other reading is in terms of pre-Christian angelology. Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God offers a significant other approach. Given the fact that in many texts, such as the Enochean literature, the visible God is the lesser YHWH who has YHWH's name, I think we should be cautious about reading to much theologically into passages that don't make clear arguments.

Now of course the book doesn't simply rely on the Book of Mormon. Widmer's real argument rests on what is outside that book. We have for instance his claim that in other writings from 1830 - 1835 modalism was taught. This is problematic since he simply excludes many anti-modalistic passages. He doesn't really grapple, for instance, with D&C 76:20 which was a vision where Jesus and the Father are seen as two separate beings. (One is to the right of the other) This same imagery of the Son on the right of the Father is found in many Mormon texts, just as it is in the Bible. While Widmer certainly can read these metaphorically, it surely is up to him to at least attempt to do so. By the same measure he neglects the many passages in Moses which speak of a plurality of beings within the Godhead.

So is it a good book? It certainly isn't a bad one. From the above criticisms you might think I hate it. I don't. Unfortunately most books both critical and apologetic of LDS theology tend to have a single and then present only that view. While I definitely think a book on the theological evolution of LDS thought is useful, the problem is that this book assumes that the evolution is simply an evolution from one clear determined positions to an other. Yet, I think that the evolution is much less an evolution between positions than an evolution from vagueness to a more determined theological position. While there were rather significant theological developments, to read the development as the acceptance and rejection of various incompatible theological positions seems difficult to argue without simply casting aside a lot of evidence.

-----------------------------------

Clark Goble
June 4, 2004