So ultimately, for me, I’m led to believe that Joseph didn’t really introduce as many novel concepts as we often give credit for. Many of the ideas were already there and he often expanded the meanings, or gave different interpretations. His main novel contribution, I think, is the BoM.

Yep, it is radical, so radical that President Hinckley wasn’t even sure we teach that or knew much about it. Sorry, couldn’t resist

In truth, the ideas about becoming “Gods” or “God like” as been around for as long as humans have been able to write. Different groups have put different spins to it, but the basis is the same. I’d be careful in building a straw man around the similarities with the Gnostics…

I doubt that Father Bloom and Harold Bloom are related but the latter argues that Joseph managed to incorporate gnosticism into his religious world view. I note this as a comment similar to Andrew Ainsworth’s #1. An example of disparate places with apparently little connection (according to Bloom) who had very similar ideas.

From his answer I also noticed his reference to pantheistic or pagan beliefs. Later, in the response to his member, he calls the belief “old polytheism”. My point in commenting was to answer jmb275 question about whether or not believing in becoming a God was new to the world as a result of JS revelations. I haven’t studied paganism much, but I’ll bet a little research would show that they believed in becoming God’s as well, but perhaps only a select few. Come to think of it, don’t we believe that narrow is the gate and straight is the way and few there be that find it?

As I’m sure you are aware, there were many “new ideas” about God and doctrines running around at the time of the revivals. The resurgence in religion was joined by a rethinking of many supposed beliefs as more and more people learned to read and felt free to take on different opinions of the bible. Alexandra Campbell and many like him helped start a new version of Protestantism in America. I believe these new understandings of doctrines helped fuel the excitement and added to the resurgence of religion in the 18oo’s. Speculation about the origin of the Indians, the second coming, signs in the heavens, people claiming to talk with God, seer stones, the lost ten tribes, and angels walking the earth seems to be all too common in the day.

Just to clarify, you’re not saying that JS couldn’t have known about men becoming Gods by the 1840’s from contemporary sources are you? Even though many considered the belief heretical, it was still known of…

BTW thanks for the link to your site, the article you wrote was very interesting. The split of the church in 1057 A.D. is interesting as according to our guide when I recently toured the Vatican, the church moved its headquarters to Constantinople after Rome was sacked in 475 A.D. and Rome became mostly abandoned. The Roman Empire survived in the east with its headquarters in Greece until the split occurred. Rome then came back into prominence as the bishop of Rome excommunicated the Constantinople bishop and was given wide political power and jurisdiction in Rome. Perhaps the Orthodox Church really is the true one…

The Catholics weren’t really preaching deification at the time of Joseph Smith, and I don’t believe the Russian Orthodox Church was an influence at all on Joseph Smith. While the Russian Orthodox Church established some churches in Alaska in 1794, the first Orthodox Church in continental America happened in 1864 in New Orleans. I don’t recall Joseph spending any time in Alaska to learn more of their knowledge of theosis/deification.

I did a post comparing theosis to exaltation. I got my info from a Presbyterian seminary. You might find it interesting, and it can be found here.

Hawkgrrrl,
I’ve got to be honest with you; I don’t understand your comment. Could you elaborate a little?

Here’s another quote from a Father Bloom that I found on the internet from a Catholic answer board.

“Perhaps in the West we have shied from talking about divinization because we so easily can fall into a pantheistic or even pagan idea. Joseph Smith did this when he founded Mormonism. If I understand them correctly, they have the idea of that faithful Mormon (males) will be raised to a divine status, each one ruling his own separate world. The doctrine has been stated famously: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’” That of course is not Christianity but the old polytheism. What the Catechism teaches is not that we will become separate gods, but that through Christ we will become totally united with the one God and in that sense be divinized.”

The Catholics have actually been teaching this doctrine since the near the beginning of their church. As with many early doctrines in Mormonism, JS and company put different twists and clarifications on them if you will. Some might say by inspiration, others think he was more of a realist using some common sense to work out the details. I think many religions believe in some sort of deification for the saved ones. This would include many of our non-Christian brothers as well. The idea certainly isn’t new, but Mormonism did put an interesting twist to it by incorporating families and eternal polygamist relationships.

See below for some interesting quotes:

“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” (St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, BOOK: Adversus haereses, worked with Pope Victor in about 191 or 192)

“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” (St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, BOOK: De Decretis, about 325?)

“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Philosopher, Theologian, Angelicus Doctor, BOOK: Opusculum contra errores graecorum, by order of Pope Urban IV 1261-64)

@Hawkgrrrl
I’m making my picket sign as we speak! I’ll meet you at our agreed upon protest location forthwith to proclaim our Truths!!

@Doug G.
“I can see both sides of that coin and therefore not good evidence for the literalness of the restoration or the dismissal of it.”
This represents my thoughts exactly.
You mentioned:
“I don’t believe any of the doctrines taught in the early church were new completely revolutionary ideas.”
I am probably just ignorant as I am not a historian of 19th century religious culture, but I thought that the idea of being a God in embryo was fairly revolutionary. Where did this idea come from? Incidentally, I do agree that many of these concepts were in place already. A bit of a disturbing fact for me is that I see many of these concepts in various sundry cults.

Ask yourself though, why is that?

There’s a deep deep mythological notion within a great mass of the population, throughout time and across cultures/religions, that the earth will suddenly be snuffed out any moment.

Regardless of these events materializing, we humans have a need to express this fear. It crops up in various cycles. 19th century American culture was awash with millennial fever.

To the original question: I think yes much of the religion was derived from the culture around joseph smith, but that seems to be a church culture in general. For we have gone through stages of adopting the religious trends around the church quiet extensively, probably like a lot of other religions.

Many beliefs also evolved over time and became more defined as the church grew. Some of these refinements were the result of new members interjecting their beliefs as well. Sidney Rigdon brought a whole new dimension to the group as he assumed roles of leadership. He helped write the “Lectures on Faith” as well as assisted in the “translation” of the “Book of Abraham” and helped with the revealed “Book of Moses”.

I think your opinion as to whether God was preparing people for his restored church by leaking advanced premonitions or that JS took advantage of the new ideas being bantered around and assimilated the ones he felt were true into church doctrine is strictly a matter of belief. I can see both sides of that coin and therefore not good evidence for the literalness of the restoration or the dismissal of it. Having said that, I’ve got to believe there were some of those “new ideas” that he wished he hadn’t picked up on. The establishment of a “Zion” which isolated the church and caused outsiders to distrust and hate the saints, or introducing the not so new idea of multiple marriage partners seemed to bring unneeded and persecution and repression.

All in all, I’ve got to believe that with so much freedom of religious thought spreading across the new nation (that wasn’t possible in Europe) many churches were bound to spring up. How inspired each is must be judged for oneself, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that restoration was some brave new idea that happened to JS out of the blue. Even the idea of restoration was a popular topic among many preachers in the country before his time…

So, is Mormonism a Whitman’s Sampler of all the “fringe” religious ideas that were in place at the time and place Joseph Smith lived? Or were these “fringe” notions inspiration for him to ask for and receive revelations?

Yes, all those fringe and mainstream ideas that Joseph recognized as Truth he readily adopted. And even many of the ideas that were thrown out led to essential revelations (e.g., Hiram Page’s stone, spiritual manifestations).