Mormon Mysticism, Mythology, and Magic: Joseph Smith versus the Metaphysics of Nicene Christianity

Mormon Mysticism, Mythology, and Magic:

Joseph Smith versus the Metaphysics of Nicene Christianity

John Walsh

Published by iMormons at Smashwords

Copyright 2011 by John Walsh

iMormons

2519 Branch View Lane

Missouri City, Texas 77459

All Rights Reserved

ISBN 978-0-9832873-0-8

Abstract

This study examines Mormon mysticism, mythology, and magic.  The ascension theology of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1805-1844), founder of Mormonism, is compared to the metaphysics of Nicene Christianity.  Smith espoused a soteriological model in which it is necessary for each man to work out his own salvation by achieving heavenly ascension.  As Smith’s followers purified, sanctified, and perfected themselves, they developed the faith necessary to pierce the veil between the natural and unseen worlds and achieve a vision of God.  To help his followers achieve ascension, Smith presented an elaborate series of temple rituals simulating the tangible ascent via metaphor and allegory.   Smith’s theology represents a radical departure from the normative Nicene tradition that dominated Smith’s contemporary religious landscape.  These Nicenes did not generally accept visionary religion and tended to marginalize mantics.  Nicenes also objected to Smith’s finite, anthropomorphic, and pluralistic conceptions of God; which were antithetical to their understanding of God as philosophically infinite, transcendent, and united.

 About the Author

John Walsh is an independent scholar who specializes in Mormon Studies.  He received his PhD in Religious Studies from the University of Wales, Lampeter; an MS in Jewish Religion from the Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies; and studied Mormon theology at both the LDS Institute of Religion at Arizona State University and Brigham Young University. He has also studied traditional Christianity at the University of Saint Thomas Graduate School of Theology at Saint Mary's Seminary.

Table of Contents

Abstract

About the Author

Table of Contents

Abbreviations

Foreword and Acknowledgements

Chapter 1: Introduction

Nicene Christianity

Joseph Smith and the Protestant World Around Him

Working Definitions of Mantic and Sophic Archetypes

Contrasting the Mantic and Sophic Archetypes

Qualification of Superstructures

Terminological Difficulties

Joseph Smith and Mysticism

Chapter 2:  Joseph Smith’s Concept of God

The Creed of Nicaea

Apotheosis and Deification

Joseph Smith’s Acceptance of Deification

Deification Correlated With Salvation

Jesus Christ: The Prototype of a Saved Being

The Concept of Deity

Joseph Smith’s God is Simultaneously One and Many

Joseph Smith’s Views on the Godhead

Problems with Nicene Monotheism

Monotheism

Gnosticism

Joseph Smith’s Understanding of Monotheism

Joseph Smith’s God is Simultaneously Finite and Absolute

Nicene Response to Joseph Smith’s Theology

Chapter 3: Joseph Smith’s Teachings About God the Father

Ex Nihilo Creation Theology

Joseph Smith’s View of Ex Nihilo Creation

Joseph Smith’s View of Genesis’ Creation Account

Theogony of God the Father

Logos and the Origin of God

Joseph Smith and Theogony

Anthropomorphism

The First Characteristic of Ancient Divinity: Personhood

The Second Characteristic of Ancient Divinity: Relationship to Mankind

The Third Characteristic of Ancient Divinity: Finite Omnipotence

Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and Adam God

Chapter 4: Joseph Smith’s Teachings About God the Son

Nicene versus Mormon Views of Jesus Christ

Historical Development

The Nature of Jesus (Christology)

The Divinity of Jesus Christ

The Mormon Jesus

Joseph Smith and the Virgin Birth

The Saving Power of Jesus

Summary of Smith’s Gospel

Coming Unto Christ

Becoming Perfected

Conditional Promises of God

Jesus’ Divine Favor

Sanctification

Chapter 5: Joseph Smith’s Teachings About God the Spirit

The Nature of the Holy Ghost

Parentage of the Holy Ghost

Probationary State of the Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost as a Mantic Guide

Belief in the Holy Ghost

The Mission of the Holy Ghost

An Examination of Nephi’s Vision (The Concept of Patterning)

Comparison Between Nephi’s Vision and the Temple Veil Interview

Prerequisites to Receiving the Holy Ghost

Gifts of the Holy Ghost

Chapter 6: Joseph Smith’s Teachings About God the Mother

Joseph Smith’s Teachings on Female Divinity

Female Subordination and Feminist Critique

Chapter 7:  Heavenly Ascension and the Mormon Temple

The Mormon Temple as Ancient Ascension Sacred Narrative

Heavenly Secrets

How Heavenly Secrets Are Gained

Mantic Power and Heavenly Ascension

Mantic Power and Natural Law

Active Mantic Power

The Language of God (Mantic Power by Word)

Objects of Mantic Power (Mantic Power by Material)

Purification, Anointing, and Robing in Royal or Heavenly Garments

Divine Glory and Priesthood

Calling with Names of Honor

Ascent To Heaven, Entering The Heavenly Place

The First Endowment

The Second and Third Endowments

Divine Names, Divine Glory, and Priesthood

Temples and the State of Reality

Temples and Community (Living and Dead)

Temples and Eternal Marriage

The Dominion of God as a Production System

The Great Family Chain

Handing Over the Heavenly Book to the Bearer of Revelation

Sending Forth with a Commission or a Message to Instruct the Generation

Nicene Rituals and Temple Views

Chapter 8: Joseph Smith and Heavenly Ascension

The Concept of ‘Seeing God’

Sophic Objections to Joseph Smith’s First Vision

Objections by the Methodist Preacher:  Joseph Smith and the Devil

‘Seeing God’ in Joseph Smith

Prerequisites to Seeing God

Heavenly Ascension in Smith’s Literature

Hebraic Sacred Narrative and Joseph Smith

The First Type of Hebraic Ascension

Eternal Progression

The Second Type of Hebraic Ascension

The Ultimate Point of Smith’s Ascension Theology

Further Rewards of Ascension

Chapter 9: Final Thoughts

Mormonism Compared to Nicene Theology and Ancient Sacred Narrative

Interpreting Joseph Smith

Works Cited and Short Titles

The Primary Works of Joseph Smith

Periodical Literature

Other Works Consulted

Abbreviations

ABD: David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary

AF: Articles of Faith

BoA: Book of Abraham

BoM: Book of Mormon

CA: Deseret Morning News, 2004 Church Almanac

CCC: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Imprimi Potest, Catechism of the Catholic Church

CR: General Conference Report

CLB: Leo A. Pursley, Imprimatur, The Catholic Living Bible

CWHN: Hugh Nibley, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley

D&C: Doctrine and Covenants

DDD: Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van Der Horst, eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible—2nd Edition

DGWE: Wouter J. Hanegraaff, ed., Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism

DSS: Florentino Garcia Martinez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition

EJ: Geoffrey Wigoder, ed., Encyclopaedia Judaica

EM: Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism

HC: Joseph Smith, History of the Church

JD: G.D. Watt, comp., Journal of Discourses

JSP: Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard Lyman Bushman, general eds., The Joseph Smith Papers

JST: Joseph Smith Translation

LoF: Lectures on Faith

NT: New Testament

OT: Old Testament

OTP: James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

PoGP: Pearl of Great Price

PSCO: Robert Kraft, Coordinator, Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins

STPJS: Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

TPJS: Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

WJS: Andrew F. Ehat, Lyndon W. Cook, comp. and eds., The Words of Joseph Smith

Foreword and Acknowledgements

This work is a slightly revised and expanded version of my 2005 doctoral dissertation, which was completed at the University of Wales, Lampeter under the supervision of Prof. Dan Cohn-Sherbok.

The original title, The Ascension Theology of Joseph Smith: Leaving Modernity and Returning to the Ancient World, has been replaced by a new title: Mormon Mysticism, Mythology, and Magic: Joseph Smith versus the Metaphysics of Nicene Christianity. This change in title was made to make it explicit that this work is essentially a study of how the mystical paradigms of Joseph Smith are deeply ingrained in the Mormon Prophet’s dogmatic theological structure.  Further, the new title makes it unambiguous that this work compares Smith’s theology with the Nicene theology of traditional Christianity.  If a reader wants to understand how the mysticism, mythology, and magic within Mormonism compares to Nicene Christianity in its metaphysical structures, then this work may be of some interest.

For the most part, this version has not been drastically altered from what was approved by my dissertation committee in 2005.  However, the literature review in Chapter 2 was removed, as it would probably be of little interest to the reader.  I have also corrected some of the grammar.  In addition, some clarifications and additions have been made.  As far as I can recall, I have not substantially changed any of my opinions or conclusions, but I have found some additional examples and support for those judgments and included them within the study.  I have also taken into account a few sources which were not available in 2005.

For the successful completion of this work, I would like to thank Rabbi Dr. Byron L. Sherwin, who was kind enough to accept me as a student.  Without Rabbi Sherwin introducing me to the worlds of philosophy and mysticism, this study would not have been possible.  I would also like to thank my wife Jenny, who tolerated many hours away from home and hearth, and my children Sarah, Rebekah, Jacob, and Elizabeth, who showed me the importance of this subject.

Houston, Texas, USA

January 13, 2011

Dr. John Walsh

Chapter 1: Introduction

This work explains the ascension theology of Joseph Smith (1805-1844),[1] the Mormon Prophet.[2]  Smith, the founder of the first world religion since the rise of Islam,[3] is the most important figure within Mormonism except for the Godhead. 

Like the primitive Christians who gave apostolic writings primacy partially because the apostles were the ones closest to the defining event of Jesus,[4] Mormons give Smith predominance partly because of his First Vision of the Father and Son.[5]  In addition, Smith is considered the head of the last dispensation of the gospel before the Second Coming of Christ.[6]  Because he ranks above the biblical prophets and apostles, Smith’s teachings are taken as the stand-alone infallible foundation of Mormon theology.[7]  Smith himself said, I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.[8]

It is extremely difficult to understand a person’s spirituality without also understanding the associated dogmatic context.[9]  Consequently, to help the reader interpret Smith’s spiritual experiences, we will analyze his doctrinal teachings regarding the concept of God and the divine plan of salvation.  To understand Smith’s theological paradigms, it is necessary to appreciate the archetypal conflict that exists between mantics and sophics.  While this terminology will be explained in more detail shortly, we can say now that mantics are generally connected with mysticism or spirituality, while sophics are normally associated with philosophy.[10]  In previous scholarly work, mantic and sophic differences have rarely been explicitly examined in detail, though some scholars have briefly described them using a variety of terms.  A few examples may suffice:  Louis Bouyer contrasts Christian mystery with Greek wisdom,[11] Colin Gunton differentiates pietism and rationalism,[12] Christopher Stead distinguishes the mystical and pedagogic,[13] Rudolf Otto speaks of the Inward Way and the Outward Way,[14] W.T. Stace proposed ‘introvertive’ and ‘extrovertive’ mysticism,[15] and Vladimir Lossky juxtaposes mystical theology and religious philosophy.[16]  The terms mantic and sophic themselves are derivatives from the transliterated Greek mantikos (prophets) and sophos (wise men) by Hugh W. Nibley, from writings by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus.[17]

While some thinkers like to label Smith simply as a prophet, the English word prophet has many connotations outside of the mantic worldview.  Therefore, a simple association of the term with Smith is problematic, as will be discussed in more detail later.  While prophet may be accurate, it is at best incomplete.  Applying the English seer to Smith deepens comprehension by adding additional context.[18]  In the ancient mystery religions, those who received the sacred vision were called seers,[19] and Smith’s visions easily qualify him for this title.  Still, even greater understanding of Smith can be gained by labeling him as a mantic, meaning a visionary sage who possesses esoteric and mystical knowledge.[20]  While calling Smith a seer immediately brings to mind his visionary experience, the mantic designation makes it clear that esoteric knowledge is directly related to his visions and is therefore a crucial part of his religious identity. 

As a mantic in the modern sophic world, Smith is one of the most fascinating personalities in American history.[21]  He attracted a number of devoted followers and must be considered one of the most successful evangelists of the nineteenth century.[22]  However, while Smith attracted support from some people, he also attracted significant hostility from others,[23] especially from Nicene Christians, who did not consider Mormonism to be a legitimate expression of Christianity.[24]  It now seems prudent to explain what is meant by Nicene, as this vocabulary will be used throughout this study.

Nicene Christianity

My usage of the term Nicene Christianity is best understood in the following context.  In the fourth century, the Christian world had no consistent theological perspective, but was filled with many groups espousing disparate beliefs.[25]  Some of the major Christian groups in the West were the Africans, Romans, and Gallics; while the Alexandrians, Antiochenes, and Cappadocians were in the East.  These are loose categories as there were countless subdivisions, with many differences between each subdivision.[26]   In fact, there were as many different scriptural canons as there were Christian communities.[27]  The main point here is that the boundaries of theological orthodoxy during this period were extremely ambiguous.[28]  Nevertheless, the majority of Christians affiliated themselves theologically with either Nicene or Arian Christianity.[29]  The distinction between Arian and Nicene Christianity is especially important as some modern Nicenes have suggested Mormonism bears a close resemblance to Arianism.[30]  We shall examine this suggestion later.   

Nicenes are so named because of their acceptance of the Nicene Creed (c. 325 AD).  Arians, on the other hand, were inspired by the theology of Arius (250-336 AD), a priest in charge of Baucalis, one of the principal churches at Alexandria.[31]  The major difference between the Nicenes and Arians was how they defined the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit. 

Arians sought to protect the transcendent nature of the Father and maintain his ultimate priority by compromising the proper divinity of the Son and Spirit.[32]  To protect the monarchy of the Father, Arianism has a tendency to stress the individual and distinct natures of the Father, Son, and Spirit.[33]  Arians believed that Jesus was eternally subordinate to the Father and not equal in dignity to him.[34]  In other words, Jesus was a demi-god of some kind, not true God, and not fully divine. The Son was not considered ‘simple,’ like the transcendent Father, but had a created composite nature.[35]

Arius and some of his early followers believed that Jesus was created ex nihilo by the Father, though later Arians generally abandoned this view.[36]  Arianism holds that Jesus’ status as ‘Son of God’ was bestowed upon him by the Father and was not eternally existent.[37]  In espousing a graded series of divinity,[38] Arians believed that Jesus had a lesser godhood than the Father, and some of them espoused only limited angelic divinity for Jesus.[39]  Some extreme Arians believed that the Son was not even like the Father.[40]  In the Arian perspective, Jesus is placed on the genetic side of the agenetic-genetic divide of reality, though still in a different category than humanity.[41]  The genetic side of reality is the created order, while the agenetic side is self-existence.  In other words, Arians believed that Jesus was a creature, though different from all other creatures.[42]  By including Jesus as part of genetic reality, Arians were bounding and limiting his divinity.  In fact, one antecedent Arian group, the Ebionites, were adoptionists who excluded Jesus’ divinity altogether and viewed him simply as a prophet and role model who had been adopted by God.[43]

In contrast, Nicenes, led by Athanasius (296-373 AD) and others, sought to include the Son fully in the Godhead without compromising the sovereignty and divinity of the Father.  Later Trinitarian doctrine would also insist upon the full unsubordinated divinity of the Spirit as well.[44]  While most primitive Christian theologians espoused some type of subordination of the Son to the Father,[45] the Nicenes (e.g., the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine), who came after the primitive Christians, denied all ontological subordination within the Trinity.  Instead, they insisted that the Son enjoyed complete transcendent divinity.  Thus, to the Nicenes, the Son was absolutely equal to the Father in glory, honor, nature, and all other respects.[46]  Accordingly, against the Arians, the Nicenes placed the Son on the agenetic side of reality with the Father.[47]

It is true that some Nicenes accept a level of subordination in the relationships between the Father, Son, and Spirit.[48]  However, since being is a reference to self, these Nicenes still completely reject any ontological subordination because this would imply deficiency on the part of the Son and/or Spirit.[49]  If the Son or Spirit had any inferiority, then they would not meet the definition of transcendence.  To be transcendent is to be beyond all definitions of existence and without any bounds or limitation whatsoever.[50]  If something is not transcendent, then a number of philosophical paradigms will conclude that it cannot be true divinity.[51]  It is a creature, and therefore limited in some way.[52]  True divinity exists only on the agenetic side of reality.[53]  Thus, something not transcendent must be part of the created order instead. Therefore, to emphasize the absolute divinity of the Son (and to deny any possibility that he was a creature) Nicenes insist that the pre-Incarnate Son shared the same exact essence as the Father and was co-eternal with him.[54]  This contest between the Arians and Nicenes to define the Son’s divinity is considered by many to be the most significant debate in Christian intellectual history.[55]

During this period of doctrinal diversity in the fourth century, a push towards uniform orthodoxy gained momentum as the imperial authorities sought a united Church for a united Roman Empire.[56]  Basil of Caesarea (approx. 330-379 AD), also known as Basil the Great, suggested that the lack of a uniform theology was a contributing factor in widespread political unrest within the empire at that time.[57]  Consequently, secular authorities were keen to resolve this theological turmoil between the Arians and Nicenes so that civil order might be restored.  Eventually, after a long and arduous struggle, secular and religious political events saw the effective demise of Arian Christianity at the close of the fourth century.  Nicene paradigms soon dominated Christian theology, though some Arian influence remained in Eastern Christianity and in the Gothic territories.[58]  However, from this point forward, many Nicene thinkers considered Arianism to be "the archetypical heresy."[59]

The break between philosophical Nicene Christianity and the ancient mythological world culminated at Nicaea, hence the name, as those soon to be called Nicenes perceived that certain ancient customs and sacred narrative might inhibit the development of a Christian Roman Empire.[60]  In response, they created the Nicene Creed to intensify the merger between Christian and Greek philosophical presumptions.[61]  This helped them eliminate these ancient customs and strengthen their position against Gnostic influences.  While this merging had begun earlier, the fourth century saw the Hebraic, mantic-based thought within primitive Christianity replaced by Hellenistic philosophical paradigms at an increasing rate.

Some readers may protest my usage of Nicene because there are many theological differences between the Nicene movements of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.[62]  Furthermore, there are many distinctions within these movements as well.  Within traditional Protestantism, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformists hardly enjoy theological uniformity.[63]  Even within Catholicism, the Greek East and Latin West also have some important differences.[64]  As David Steinmetz said, Christians have argued, often passionately, over every conceivable point of Christian doctrine from the filioque to the immaculate conception.  There is scarcely an issue of worship, theology, ethics, and politics over which some Christians have not disagreed among themselves.[65]  At times, these differences have led to violence.  For example, Protestants and Catholics have tortured each other to death over disagreements on how the Eucharist was transformed into God and how Jesus could be both human and divine.[66]  Yet, while this lack of unity within Christianity does exist, it is useful for purposes of comparison to label all groups accepting the Nicene Creed as Nicenes.[67]  Nicene Christianity is distinguished from primitive Christianity, or what can be called the pre-Nicene Church.[68]  The Nicene Creed is important because it is the earliest and most authoritative expression of traditional Christian orthodoxy on the nature of God.[69]  From 325 AD onwards, this creed defined what it meant to be a Christian within historical tradition. 

Joseph Smith and the Protestant World Around Him

At this point, it might be helpful to explain why the definition of Nicene Christianity is important in a study that is focused primarily on Joseph Smith and Mormonism.  The United States has traditionally been dominated by Nicene mental habits, as Protestantism is a sub-category of Nicene Christianity.[70]   In fact, some Protestants believe that the Nicene Creed should be one of three texts (along with the Ten Commandments and Lord’s Prayer) that every Protestant should know by heart.[71]  Since Nicene Protestants dominated American religious thought throughout Smith’s life,[72] any study of Smith is enhanced by understanding the Nicene environment around him and to which his religious expressions were responding. 

In the eighteenth century, when Smith’s parents and grandparents were born, the Congregationalist Church was the dominant religious group in New England.[73]  Congregationalists, who descended from the Puritans,[74] were typically strong Calvinists, though milder forms also existed which were closer to Arminianism (salvation conditional upon faith) than Antinomianism (salvation by predestination only).[75]  At the beginning of the Westward expansion period of the early nineteenth century, when Mormonism was first preached, other Protestant denominations were growing—particularly at the frontier.[76]  This period, often called the Second Great Awakening, saw a rupture in previous religious unity, as Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists challenged Congregationalist dominance.[77]

In the frontier areas, apostolic primitivism was an active force, mainly because the population was not as strongly tied to historical Christian tradition.[78]  These ties to tradition were loosened partly because there were not as many traditional clergy to offer official biblical exegesis (or interpretation) as in more settled areas.[79]  This left the common population more opportunity to decide for themselves what the Bible meant.  As a result, Smith competed for converts with the other groups on somewhat of an equal footing.[80]  Smith’s mantic God was juxtaposed against the dominant Calvinist God that was sponsored by most of the other groups.

While apostolic primitivists considered Smith an attractive figure with his emphasis on revelation and spiritual gifts, traditional Nicenes found Smith troubling.  Most Nicenes deemed him both presumptuous and blasphemous.[81]  To illustrate Nicene attitudes, a few negative views of Smith held by his contemporary adversaries will be briefly cited. William Cadman said: That Joseph Smith…taught a worse doctrine than the Devil did in the Garden of Eden.[82]  Likewise, Nancy Towle said, Mormonism was one of the most deep-concerted-plots of Hell, to deceive the hearts of the simple that had ever come, within the limits of my acquaintance.[83]  Also, William Holmes’ uncle considered Mormonism dreadful and most detestable...[84]  Similarly, Origen Bacheler believed Smith and his followers were the most vile, the most impudent, the most impious knot of charlatans and cheats with which any community was ever disgraced and cursed…[85]  These harsh assessments were fairly typical of Nicene views of Smith, as he was simply considered the most foul-mouthed blackguard that was ever commissioned by Satan to vex and torment the children of men…[86]  Because of the intensity of the Nicene angst against Mormonism, Nicene clerics sometimes excommunicated their congregants for even receiving Mormon missionaries into their homes.[87]  Nicene influence on common culture was so pervasive that it seemed at times that everyone was against the Mormons.[88]

  Many Nicenes immediately rejected Smith’s prophethood because they believed legitimate prophets ceased with John the Baptist.[89]  Thus, by definition, Smith could not have been a legitimate prophet because such persons no longer existed.  In addition, they found Smith’s teachings so heretical that Mormonism might be considered the greatest heresy in traditional Christian history, exceeding the problems of all the great classical heresies (e.g., Gnosticism, Sabellianism, Arianism, and Pelagianism) combined. 

Even today, within traditional Christianity, one of the great debates about Mormonism is whether it should be considered a heretical Christian offshoot or a separate religion altogether.  There seems to be little doubt that Mormonism is not orthodox traditional Christianity or anything close to it.  Eventually, Nicene disaffection with Smith caused him and his brother Hyrum to be murdered by a mob—led by a Methodist minister named Williams.[90]  Whig newspaperman G.T.M. Davis defended these murders as ridding the earth of ‘two as wickedly depraved men, as ever disgraced the human family.’[91]

Since America was founded upon the idea of religious freedom and pluralism, it is natural to inquire as to why those from competing religions felt it was necessary to kill (and not merely censure) the Mormon Prophet.  Robert Charles Zaehner proposed, Such passions are not raised in humane men except when they see a gross perversion of what they hold to be the truth.[92]  It is suggested that Nicenes opposed Smith largely because the essential core of his religion contradicted their own;[93] and they considered Mormonism a damnable perversion of true Christianity. 

Many Nicenes considered distortion of the ‘Christian’ message more reprehensible than simple error.[94]  In the Nicene view, by claiming to be Christians, and yet denying Trinitarianism by teaching radically different views of God, Mormons presented a great threat to the souls of anyone who heard their message.  Due to some superficial similarities with traditional Christianity, Nicenes believed that the ‘simple folk’ would not be able to see through ‘the Mormon masquerade,’ if religious toleration were allowed to prevail.  As a result, Nicenes believed that souls would be lost unless strong and immediate actions were undertaken. 

Accordingly, a committee from Clay County, Missouri recommended that the Mormons be forced to leave the state because The religious tenets of this people are so different from the present churches of the age, that they always have and always will, excite deep prejudices against them, in any populous country.[95]  The Nicene response eventually resulted in the murder of Smith and the expulsion of the Mormon people from the boundaries of the then-United States.  It is worth noting that the anti-Mormonism displayed by Nicenes bears many similarities to the witch trials in which traditional Christians also tried to eliminate beliefs alien to their worldview.[96]

While there is some polemical bias in the Nicene evaluation of Mormonism, it is very accurate to say that Smith’s teachings were a radical departure from the Nicene worldview that dominated his environment.[97]  It is suggested that Smith embraced an ancient mantic worldview that challenged the modern sophic worldview adopted by most Nicenes in nineteenth century America. In fact, Nibley suggested that the Nicene-Mormon conflict arose from the purest case of Mantic versus Sophic.[98]

The most radical departure from the sophic world view is that Smith espoused a mantic finite God—one utterly incompatible with the Nicene sophic absolute God.[99]  Mormonism essentially rejects the ontological division between genetic and agenetic reality that has dominated sophic thought since Plato.  Of Mormon and Nicene differences, Truman G. Madsen said:

Rejecting or replacing, as it does, many of the axioms of Western tradition, it becomes decisively clear that Mormonism unites, dissembles [dis-assembles], and contributes doctrines of a truly revolutionary character. Differences…are not merely peripheral, but basic—at the very core of its ontology—and nothing is more basic.[100]

Therefore, Mormonism can be considered a rejection of historical Christian tradition in favor of returning to the mantic paradigms of pre-sophic cultures.  It is important to note that the claim is not being made that Mormonism shares exactly the same doctrines as various ancient cultures, but that there is a similarity in mentality between Mormonism and these ancient views.[101]  This fundamentally different way of understanding God and the world was a significant source of friction between Smith and his Nicene contemporaries. 

Yet, while the clash between the mantic Smith and the sophic Nicenes was exemplary, it was not unique.  Instead, it was a manifestation of a more primordial conflict between mantic and sophic paradigms that has been raging in Western thought ever since Greek philosophical thinkers first broke away from the mythological worldview over twenty-five centuries ago.  In the historical development of Western civilization, this conflict has been seen repeatedly in the different foundational subcultures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[102] As a result, a comparison between Mormon and Nicene theology will allow us to highlight differences between sophic and mantic worldviews in general, which may provide some tools in examining other religious conflicts which have their root in the mantic vs. sophic dichotomy.[103]

Working Definitions of Mantic and Sophic Archetypes

We will now define the mantic and sophic terminology in more detail.  Mantic indicates the type of mysticism included in the mantic archetype.  Sacred narrative defines the expression of mythopoeic thought in the mantic archetype.[104]  Mantic power indicates any activity within the mantic archetype that obtains its objective outside the natural laws of cause-and-effect, as understood by modern science and empirical research.[105]  This definition covers both magic and miracle, as the key difference between them is legitimacy and not technique.[106]  Mantic power includes a whole range of religious beliefs and esoteric practices whereby a person attempts to control his destiny via supernatural knowledge and power.[107]  The usual Greek word translated to English as ‘miracles’ is dynameis, the plural form of the Greek term for ‘power.’[108]  Thus, miracle-working is a display of divine power.  It is in this sense that I use the term mantic power in relation to Smith.  Interestingly, Elliot R. Wolfson also uses the term mantic power in discussing the spiritual power in Kabbalah.[109]

Sophic describes the type of philosophy that stands in antithetical opposition to the mantic archetype.  Logos describes the type of rationality included within the sophic archetype.  It is noted that the Cappadocian Fathers, who were important Nicene thinkers of the early medieval period, used logos to describe both rationality and the Word of God which demonstrates their association of the two concepts.[110]  Furthermore, Nicenes have considered irrationality an assault by the Devil.[111]  Pure sophics deny mantic power, as they believe substance is immutably embedded in God’s will, as reflected in his created order.[112]  It is not possible to change this created order outside of the laws of nature that God has installed. 

Comparing this mantic and sophic terminology, Nibley said:

The Greek word Mantic simply means prophetic or inspired, oracular, coming from the other world and not from the resources of the human mind…The Mantic is the equivalent of what Professor Goodenough designates as ‘vertical’ Judaism…The Sophic, on the other hand, is the tradition which boasted its cool, critical, objective, naturalistic, and scientific attitude; its Jewish equivalent is what Goodenough calls the ‘horizontal’ Judaism.[113]

C.G. Jung proposed similar constructs when he suggested that the psychological and the visionary were two contrasting modes of artistic creation.[114]  Jung’s psychological mode focuses on the conscious life, while his visionary mode focuses on the unconscious life.  Jung’s expressions are conceptually similar to the mantic and sophic archetypes, though he is obviously coming at the issue from a different field, psychology, and with different methodologies and terminologies. 

To ensure that the definitions of mantic and sophic are clear, the overall superstructures,[115] or defining models, will now be articulated in more detail.  While both mantics and sophics attempt to explain the nature of reality and humanity’s place within it,[116] they use radically different approaches due to antithetical ontological assumptions.[117]  The first distinction between mantic and sophic thought is that mantics experience everything as either sacred existence or profane nonexistence and only that which has eternal self-existence enjoys true reality.[118]  This first distinction is the most basic, and all other distinctions hinge upon it.  Mantics live in a sacred cosmos that is filled with supernaturalism, sacred narrative, and mantic power.[119]  To illustrate using Hebraic examples:  God created Adam from the dust of the earth;[120] Eve was formed from Adam’s rib;[121] Elijah called fire down from heaven;[122] Moses spoke to God ‘face to face;’[123] Jonah was swallowed by a great fish;[124] and Jesus multiplied bread and fishes.[125]  For the Hebraic thinkers, the sacred narrative represented by the Bible was simply a representation of daily life in antiquity.  These types of supernatural expressions were not restricted to Hebraic culture, but were common to all ancient mantic civilizations.    

Mantics presume the existence of an unseen spiritual world populated by real beings with personality.  Whether a particular belief system calls these unseen beings gods, angels, demons, jinn, or spirits is irrelevant, as the concept is similar.[126]  It is interesting to note that in some Islamic traditions the guardians of the heavenly spheres were alternatively known as intellects, angels, spirit entities, or prophets;[127] which shows an indifference to ontology in favor of function.  This is a concept that will be very important throughout this study.

This important idea can be summarized as follows:  Unlike sophics, who focus on defining the divine nature of these supernatural beings, mantics focus on divine identity and role performance.[128]  In other words, to a sophic, God is God because of what he is, while to a mantic, God is God because of what he does.  To illustrate, Augustine taught that God’s substance, which is his divine nature in a concrete expression, was that ‘by which he is what he is.’[129]  On the other hand, the head of many ancient mantic pantheons assumed divine rulership through actions by, with, and even against other gods.  The sophic divinity rules by ontological superiority, while the mantic gods rule by victorious struggle.  This difference is exemplified by the Mormon-Nicene conflict. 

Mantics presume that interaction between this unseen world and our natural world is not only possible, but desirable, and in fact even impossible to avoid.[130]  From the mantic perspective, the natural and unseen worlds are part of one interconnected system with permeable boundaries.[131]  In sacred narrative, unseen beings affect almost every aspect of a person’s life.[132]  It is ordinarily the gods who are responsible for exhibitions of nature, though occasionally it is either a hero or an ordinary person, though usually in some kind of interaction with divinity. Humanity’s dominant concern in antiquity was how this unseen world would affect his personal situation.[133]  This mantic perspective carried forward within Western culture until the modern sophic era.  For mantics, religion is ubiquitous and religious significance is attached to almost all aspects of life.[134]  For example, the 1347-1721 outbreaks of bubonic plague were considered divine retribution for personal and societal wickedness.[135]

In contrast to this mantic view, those sophics who accept the existence of a divine unseen world generally view that world as an ontologically separate, uncreated, immutable, static, and timeless system having no interaction with our own natural, created, changing, temporal, and spatial system.[136]  While no one sophic was responsible for developing this understanding of a transcendent ideal world, some thinkers credit Parmenides and Plato with significant influence on its foundational development.[137]  Certainly, classical Greek thought emphasizes, as John R. Lenz says, the existential boundary between mortals and immortals.[138]  Fritz Graf suggested that sophics believed: Nature is a closed system, homogeneous and radically separated from the divine world; never and nowhere do gods, demons and heroes interfere with the course of nature.  Concomitantly, on the level of theology, people are not able to penetrate into the divine world.[139]

In the sophic worldview, without the possibility of interaction between the two worlds, the unseen world and its residents, including God, are effectively relegated to immutable theoretical concepts as opposed to tangible realities.[140]  The divine world is assessable to mind and thought alone, and only then, by analogy.[141]  It is interesting to note that some Nicenes believed that ‘mind’ was a title of primal reality.[142]  According to Edmund Hill, it represented the subject of higher psychic functions, volitional and affective as well as coterminous, with what [is called] the inner man…[143]  While God himself was not identical with mind, sophics believed that mind was the closest human expression for the divine.[144]  Certainly, pure sophics consider all scriptural discussion of interaction between the unseen and natural worlds as metaphorical instead of being literal.[145]  Thus, sophics essentially view the functional reality of the unseen world as a fabrication left over from a more primitive time.[146]  According to Emile Zola, this fabrication would be overcome when science and education prevailed among the ignorant population.[147]  This difference in worldview is a prime reason why mantics espouse active mantic power and sophics reject it.[148]  For if a person believes in the interaction of the unseen and physical worlds, the desire to exert influence will exist; but if a person rejects that interaction, then mantic power will be dismissed as well. 

A central sophic tenet is that all knowledge is discovered through reason and deduction, as opposed to revelation.[149]  As a result, the sophic archetype is related to all knowledge not revealed from heaven, but discovered empirically and analytically.  In contrast, mantics consider divine wisdom the only thought that is true;[150] and true knowledge comes from revelation and not reason.[151]  Events which are often attributed to unseen beings in sacred narrative are considered acts of nature or probability in sophic thought.  Specifically, these events do not have personality or will behind them.[152]  As an example of this very early sophic rejection, as far back as Socrates, men of science rejected the sacred narrative that Boreas seized Orithyia from the river; and suggested that the true cause of the maiden’s disappearance was simply a large gust of wind that blew her into the jagged rocks below.[153]

Because sophics reject the functional reality of the unseen world, they view these mantic religious expressions as imagination.[154]  In general, sophics view supernaturalism as superstition and an impediment to humanity’s progress.[155]  In place of the mantic otherworldly theme, sophics believe mankind must depend upon its own inherent capabilities to reach a perfect, ordered, and utopian society, instead of relying on some higher unseen power.[156]  At least since Immanuel Kant, Western culture has been ready to reject anything that transcends natural law and order.[157]  While sophics might rely upon God’s ideals, they rarely rely upon a tangible display of his mantic power.  This is one prime reason why many modern Nicene theologians have been unwilling to defend the practices of past Christian mystics.[158]

Contrasting the Mantic and Sophic Archetypes

Due to these conflicting paradigms, the sophic and mantic archetypes have antithetical religiosity that can be described in various ways.  First, mantics find primary manifestation through directly interacting with Deity, who is a sensible person (meaning capable of being perceived by the physical senses); while sophics find primary expression through rational thought about Deity, who is an immaterial, insensible object (not capable of being perceived by the physical senses).  The mantic God is a living ‘power,’ but the sophic God is what Mircea Eliade calls an idea, an abstract notion, a mere moral allegory.[159]   The sophic God is what Edmund Hill calls absolute being beyond being.[160]  According to Gregory of Nazianzus, the sophic God is simple unpictorial reality.[161]  He cannot truly be described in any accurate way.  Thus, within sophic thought, there is no need for bodily heavenly ascension, and prayer could take strictly a contemplative form.  This is consistent with the idea that faith should be severed from experience.[162]

This is one key area in which Nicene theologians have sought to develop beyond their neo-Platonic roots.  This is not to imply that sophics never pray or even expect divine assistance in the natural world, but when they do, the help expected is generally more abstract than literal.  To illustrate, sophics expect psychological comfort from prayer, but they do not really expect the resurrected Jesus to literally show up in their home to discuss their problems, as the mantic Smith did.[163]  For many Nicenes, pure prayer was actually a complete surrender to the divine will lacking any form of petition.[164]  In this view, petitioning God was a sign of an incomplete faith that lacked trust in divine providence.  It also reflects their concept of an unlimited all-transcendent God who did not need to come to you as he is already omnipresent.[165]

In contrast, Smith’s God was subject to time and space, and while he could spiritually communicate with someone (much like moderns might use the telephone), such communications could not replace the ‘face to face’ contact Smith espoused.  Further, in Smith’s view, God wanted his followers to petition him and even chastised prophets who failed to do so.[166]  Many of Smith’s revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants were received after petitioning God.  Thus, Smith’s concept of prayer was very different from Nicene perspectives.

Since Nicenes believe that divine transcendence is required in order to establish God’s monarchy,[167] they partly reject Smith’s theology because it invalidates divine monarchal rule according to their principles.  It is worth noting that some Nicenes have been uncomfortable with the pure sophic understanding of God as an immaterial object of contemplation, and have sought to stress that while God is not a sensible person, he is not truly insensible either, as he transcends both sensibility and insensibility.[168]  Nevertheless, the normative Nicene view of God as effectively insensible automatically excludes the possibility of someone like Smith having literal, sensible interactions with the divine world according to their understanding. 

Our second point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought is that mantics espouse sacred narrative, while sophics depend upon rational thought and logic.  Logos organizes a logically coherent system by reducing the natural and human world to a single principle.[169]  In contrast, mantics have a multiplicity of principles.[170]  Thus, ancient mantic polytheism is the assumed backdrop against which modern sophic monotheism emerges as an antithesis.[171]

Unlike sophics, who depend strongly upon empirical data, mantics understand that the realities of the unseen world cannot necessarily be understood according to the principles of this world.  Yet, by default, they are forced to use the language of the natural world to describe their experiences with the unseen world because there is no other alternative.[172]  However, because the language of this world is not well suited towards describing the unseen world, descriptions of it seem abstract, ambiguous, inconsistent, incoherent, irrational, sub-ethical, absurd, abstruse, and paradoxical.[173]  These paradoxes can be deliberate as mantics try to describe multiple things that are all true, but appear irreconcilable.[174]

All interactions between our natural world and the sacred unseen world should be considered as a form of sacred narrative.[175]  Henri Frankfort characterized this type of non-philosophic thought as ‘mythopoeic,’ ‘mythopoeic,’ or ‘mythic.’[176]  In addition, Eliade suggested,

Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took place in Primordial Time, the fabled time of the ‘beginnings.’  In other words, myth tells how, through the deeds of Supernatural Beings, a reality came into existence, be it the whole of reality, the Cosmos, or only a fragment of reality—an island, a species of plant, a particular kind of human behavior, an institution.  Myth, then, is always an account of a ‘creation’;  it relates how something was produced, began to be.  Myth tells only of that which really happened, which manifested itself completely."[177]

Eliade is making several points that are relevant to these points.  First, sacred narrative is a tool to describe real events that truly happened.[178]  Second, because these real events occurred under a different ontological situation, sacred narrative must be couched in language that may seem to us naïve or imaginary.  For example, no modern thinker could possibly accept that Adam was literally made from the earth, while Eve was literally made from one of Adam’s ribs.  Yet, the mantic thinker accepts that this is what really occurred.  It is a ‘true story.’  However, even though the mantic thinker believes that this is what really occurred, he understands it may contradict other ‘true stories’ (or sacred narrative).  A mantic may also understand that his sacred truth may contradict empirical truth without invalidating it. 

Thus, since sacred narrative involves a natural inconsistency and contradiction, mantics offer different explanations, each a part of the holistic truth that cannot be completely understood by words alone.  Specifically, against logos,[179] sacred narrative allows multiple explanations that are not logically exclusive and can actually contradict each other, but are all still simultaneously true.  Frankfort suggests mantics pursued a multiplicity of approaches[180] because each inconsistent answer is held to be simultaneously true from its own perspective.[181]

For example, in describing the enthroned Glory, Massekhet Hekhalot, a Jewish work from late antiquity, says, One half of him is fire…and the other half is hail…[182]  This is a contradictory expression as fire and hail cannot coexist in spatial proximity in a scientific worldview.  Another example is the ancient Egyptian sun god Ra who is represented in several different forms that are incongruent with each other.[183]  Likewise, in Assyrian theology, the ilu Istar could simultaneously be a divine person (goddess), the planet Venus, and the spirit of battle.[184]   The ancient mantics were able to view conflicting and mutually exclusive truths as all being simultaneously true.  Like the different faces of a jewel, these conflicting stories all reflect together to reveal what cannot be united in one earthly principle.  To the ancient mantic thinker, it was silly to expect the sacred narrative of the unseen world to make sense in this natural world.[185]

  Guy G. Stroumsa says that each sacred narrative is not truth itself, but refers to a hidden truth which it represents.[186]  Thus, Frankfort suggests, The ancients did not attempt to solve the ultimate problems confronting man by a single and coherent theory; that has been the method of approach since the time of the Greeks [sophics].[187]  Nibley suggests that the sophics were popularizers of science and common sense, [and] ‘attacked every illusion and every tradition in the name of truth, clarity, objectivity, consistency, and neatness in thinking and speech.’[188]

The sophic tendency toward logical thought alienated mantics, as sacred narrative could not be understood according to its principles.[189]  But if a person truly wishes to understand sacred narrative, he must accept that it represents a different ontological paradigm than the one present in our natural, definable world.[190] The ancient formulae, or sacred narrative, are indeed ‘true stories.’[191]  They are what Christopher Rowe describes as the things that are.[192]  But they are also what Carol Zaleski calls narrative truth,[193] as opposed to empirical truth. 

It is worth noting that Smith described some of his teachings as follows: …the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls.[194]  Like the ancients, Smith’s truth is mantic narrative, not sophic empiricism.  However, while sacred narrative is true, it is not an internally coherent system and is inconsistent with logos.  To those who worship at the altar of modernity, this lack of consistency means sacred narrative should be dismissed, but in ancient times sacred narrative was a perfectly legitimate way of interpreting reality.[195]

The third point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought is that logos encourages innovation, while sacred narrative is conservative and biased against change.[196]  For example, while Justin Martyr suggested most Jews rejected the Christian gospel because of custom and conservatism,[197] the original Jews who accepted Jesus were not truly innovative, but simply found Jesus consistent with the Hebraic tradition they espoused.  Like the Qumranites, whose ‘radicalness’ was really a return to conservative values, the first Christians were very conservative and found Jesus’ teachings very consistent with ancient Hebraic religion.[198]

Detractors may note Smith spoke negatively of tradition.[199]  However, in those cases, he emphasized that it was incorrect tradition with which he had concern.[200]  At other times, Smith spoke highly of traditions that were in accordance with divine truth.[201]  While Smith was perceived by Nicenes and secular rationalists as a radical innovator, Smith himself did not believe he was truly innovating, but was in fact only restoring the original sacred narrative.  Interestingly, Clement of Alexandria believed the gospel was republication of the primordial revelation given by God to the earliest man, but corrupted into polytheism.[202]  Thus, both Smith and Clement believed Adam had the original gospel.  However, while Clement believed Adam was a sophic, Smith believed he was a mantic.  A primary complaint of Smith against the Nicenes was that he believed that they had changed the original revelation of God through their theological development.  Some early Christian thinkers also considered Trinitarian theology to be a submission of the biblical revelation to an alien philosophical system.[203]  The reality is that both Smith and the Nicenes[204] amplified their theology beyond the biblical text.[205]  But both Smith and the Nicenes considered each other’s elaborations to be a form of corruption.

Since changing the sacred narrative even slightly changes the meaning of human existence, mantics generally reject innovation.  Mantics emphasize tradition because they believe they live in a static and changeless world.[206]  In the mantic view, as Margaret Barker said, …any attempt to tamper with the system distorts and, in the end, destroys it.[207]  The ancient mantics advanced culturally per se, but they believed, as Frankfort said, only the changeless is ultimately significant.[208]  The unchanging principles are far more crucial to a mantic than that which is only transitory and subject to change.  While this may seem similar to some sophic concepts regarding immutability, mantics believe it is only principles and stories that cannot change.  Beings can change as they adapt themselves to different stories.

This bias against change caused rather harsh responses to those who promoted innovation.  For example, Egypt’s Akhenaten (Amenophis IV) attempted to abolish the old Egyptian sacred narrative and replace it with a new religion.[209]  In Akhenaten’s religion, the pharaoh was the sole spokesman for the Aten, or sun disk, and therefore the only representation of Deity.  All other Deities were abandoned.  Because Akhenaten attempted to reduce Deity to a single principle by replacing the large Egyptian pantheon with a form of monotheism, Hornung, Petrie, Breasted, and others have suggested that he was the first modern (or philosophic) man.[210]  However, after his death, the heretic pharaoh drew sharp rebuke from the more traditional Egyptian society.  His successors did everything they could to erase even the memory of this heretical ruler; such was their displeasure at his changes to the sacred narrative of Egypt. 

At times, sophic innovation may be couched in mantic language because logos assumes truths about God are understood to have always been there; for they have what Glen W. Most calls universal intelligibility and eternal self-identity…[211]  After all, a transcendently perfect God cannot evolve, and thus, while a sophic may discover a new truth about God, the truth itself is deemed to have always existed.  Accordingly, an innovative interpretation is deemed discovered, rather than created.   

The fourth point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought is that sacred narrative is self-justifying to mantics.[212]  There is no need for argument, as the sacred narrative itself is sufficient to establish authority.  To illustrate, OT sacred narrative presents Adam and Eve as transgressing God’s law.[213]  While the description is straightforward enough, many questions could be asked of this episode.  For example, it is true that God commanded Adam not to partake of the tree:[214] but why did God create a man who would succumb to temptation, instead of a man who would not?  Or, why did God place the tree in the Garden where it would be a constant temptation to Adam, instead of some place far removed?  Many similar questions could be asked, but the point should be made.  While the story leaves many logical questions, they are not answered because the story is self-justifying.

The fifth point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought is that sacred narrative can be morally ambivalent to sophics, as the motivations of the divine world were not necessarily understandable by the motivations of our natural world.[215]  For example, in the OT there are a number of instances in which God is portrayed in a morally ambivalent manner.  In the case of the city of Amalek, God commanded that every human, including infants, and every animal be slain.[216]  In Exodus, God cursed all Egyptian firstborn, whether of man or animal, because of Pharaoh’s sin.[217] Surely any child unlucky enough to be born to parents who did not paint their doorposts did not deserve to die?[218]  And on what basis would animals also need to be destroyed because of man’s sin? God commanded all males of a city be killed, but suggested that the women and children could be taken as spoils of war. Surely not every male without exception was an evil man?   And does it not violate the principles of morality to kill the father of a family and then take the women and children of his family as slaves and concubines?[219]  Many other examples could be cited, but the moral ambiguity of the God of the OT, as understood from a sophic perspective, is well established.  It is worth noting that literature from the Second Temple period forward reflects attempts to remove the moral ambiguity associated with God in earlier narrative.[220]  This is a reflection of sophic habits (specifically the need to justify) infiltrating Hebraic tradition.  Sophics insist on an absolute rejection of degeneracy, as defined by logos.[221]  As antecedent Jews, those whose descendants would form rabbinic Judaism, came into contact with logos, they felt a need to explain or reinterpret their sacred narrative so that their God might be presented in a more elevated form.

The sixth point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought is seen in instances where the sacred narrative is apocalyptic,[222] while sophic thought usually rejects apocalypticism.  In general, sophics often deem mantics to have some sort of psychological disorder, as evidenced by their irrational beliefs.[223]  This disorder is sometimes called an over-heated mind.[224]  Since Smith authored and translated a significant amount of apocalyptic writing (e.g., BoM, D&C, PoGP, JST, and non-canonical historical documents),[225] it should not be surprising that Smith’s revelations are considered little more than fantasy by sophic thinkers.[226]  For example, in a fairly recent analysis of Smith, Morain suggests that his writings and translations were simply the result of psychological dissociation caused by repeated childhood trauma, or in other words, an over-heated mind.[227]  From the beginning, Smith taught his followers to be prepared for such sophic critique.  For example, in Alma 30, a holy prophet confronts an anti-Christ who charges him with having a frenzied mind.[228]  The narrative then explains how to successfully overcome such an adversary.

A.Y. Collins suggests there were two apocalyptic types in the ancient world and both are rooted in prophecy.[229]  The first type is symbolic vision, whose images are not to be taken literally, but still refer to real beings and events from both the unseen and natural worlds.  The second type involves a holy man who receives a revelation via a mantic journey to the unseen world.[230]  These ascents were a common feature of Hebraic apocalyptic literature comprised in the Second Temple and early Christian periods.  While this type of visionary apocalypticism was once thought to have been restricted to certain types of early Judaism, more recent scholarship has suggested it is actually part of a more ancient Hebraic system of thought that has affected both early Judaism and primitive Christianity.[231]  This study will show a number of examples of Smith advocating both types of apocalypticism.  In contrast, because of the excesses of fervent believers, sophics, such as Nicenes, have sometimes suppressed apocalyptic expressions.[232]

This ends our brief comparison between the mantic and sophic archetypes.  Obviously, neither the mantics nor the sophics accept the validity of the ontological assumptions of the opposing model, which directly contradict their own paradigms.[233]  Both mantics and sophics seek to understand the natures of God and man, as well as the relationship between them.[234] Consequently, the mantic and sophic archetypes differ not so much in the questions they ask, but in the approaches and underlying presumptions they use to answer them.[235]  It should be noted that the antithetical natures of these opposing mental habits cause conflict because both the sophics and mantics are uncompromisingly loyal to their own paradigms.[236]

Within this study, it is proposed that Smith had an ancient mantic worldview, while Nicenes opposed Smith largely because they had adopted a sophic worldview.  The implicit assumptions of the mantic and sophic archetypes are unconscious mental habits forming many paradigms of Mormonism and Nicene theology.[237]  For example, Nicenes considered Greek philosophy and poetic literature to be divinely inspired and plagiarized from the scriptures.[238]  On the other hand, Smith strongly criticized the sophic worldview (‘the philosophies of men’[239]) as being inspired by the Devil.  This conflict ended when Nicenes murdered Smith, as they previously persecuted many other mantics.[240]

All people are to some degree a product of their time and environment.[241]  As Jaroslav Pelikan noted,

[W]e do not have a choice between being shaped by our intellectual and spiritual DNA and not being shaped by it, as though we had sprung into being by some kind of cultural spontaneous generation.[242]

As the first Greek philosophers were hostile to the religious mystics who were contemporary to them,[243] the sophic Nicenes were opposed to Smith and his mantic paradigms in the early 1800s.  Conflict between Mormonism and Nicene Christianity was in many ways inevitable due to antithetical DNA.  Having made these points of distinction between mantic and sophic thought, I will associate Smith more strongly with them in Chapters 2 through 8. 

Qualification of Superstructures

The above mantic and sophic models are simplified, imperfect representations.  The word ‘archetype’ has been chosen to indicate theoretical ideals versus practical realities.  Undoubtedly, all empirical occurrences will show a mixing of the two archetypes, or ideals.[244]  No person is an absolutely pure representative of his dominant archetype and is always a mixture of the two.  In fact, many philosophers merged magical beliefs with philosophical concepts.[245]  To illustrate, even noted philosophers like Plato[246]  and Empedocles[247]  had some mantic theories; Neo-Platonist theurgy linked philosophy, religion and magic;[248] Pythagoreans linked philosophy and esotericism;[249] Gregory of Nyssa believed philosophy and mysticism were two different ways of knowing God;[250] and Augustine, in his later years, while he remained a philosopher, became more eschatological and regretted accepting platonic theories too uncritically into his theology in his earlier days.[251]  This being said, it must be remembered that a basic component of Nicene Augustinian theology is that humanity is helpless within God’s providence, which fundamentally contradicts Smith’s mantic view that correct knowledge leads to empowerment.[252]

This type of hybrid mixing will make our study difficult because it means our primary subject (Smith) and our comparators (Nicene Christianity, ancient sacred narrative) will retain a measure of duality.  Thus, both Smith and the comparators will have somewhat of an ambiguous and evasive character.[253]  This is to be expected, and it is even helpful, as it allows nuanced analysis and categorization.[254]  This also means it is possible to examine a person in light of two internally conflicting mentalities. 

While many thinkers have tried to reconcile mantic and sophic worldviews, most came to the eventual conclusion that reconciliation was impossible due to the conflicting paradigms of the two perspectives.[255]  This is because they are opposite poles on the same spectrum, though with many possible configurations and combinations.[256]

  The mantic-sophic spectrum can be imagined as a scale measuring a sophic mentality.  Zero percent means a total absence of logos, and thus a completely mantic mentality.  One hundred percent means a completely sophic mentality and a total absence of sacred narrative.  In other words, sacred narrative and logos have polar opposition.[257]

My methodology here is similar to the scholarship surrounding the presence of the ‘Trickster’ God.[258]  While not all Tricksters have all the characteristics of the Trickster archetype or symbolic pattern,[259] most Tricksters have many of them; and thus, can be identified as a representative of the phenomena, though some gods are more pure tricksters than others.  Likewise, some sophics and mantics will be more representative of their respective archetypes than others.  For example, J.J. Collins suggests the mode of discourse in Qumran was predominately mythological rather than philosophical.[260]  By using ‘predominately,’ J.J. Collins implies a slight mixture, though they are mainly mantic and thus strong representatives of the mantic archetype.  Using this understanding, in this study, Smith and the ancient mantics