The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

PACIFISM. See WAR AND PEACE IN WORLD RELIGIONS

PAHLAVI TEXTS. These texts make up an extensive literature supplementing the Zoroastrian Avesta in the Pahlavi (Middle Persian) language—properly Zend-Avesta (Interpretation of the Avesta). They include translations of the Avesta (the Denkard contains lost fragments) and original works, notably the Bundahishn (Original creation) and Arda Viraf Namak (Visit to heaven and hell), a Parsi eschatology.

See also JUDAISM

Bibliography. Rabbi S. Finkelman, Rabbi M. D. Stein Lieber, Rabbi S. Moshe, and Rabbi Nosson, Pesach, Passover—Its Observance, Laws, and Significance; R. Posner, Passover; C. Roth, “Pesach/Passover,” Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by C. Roth; I. Singer, “Pesach,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia.

A. Fruchtenbaum

PLURAL MARRIAGE, MORMON TEACHING AND HISTORY OF. Plural marriage, or polygamy, has been a contentious doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even though the church officially declared that plural marriage would no longer be practiced or tolerated, there are currently over one hundred splinter groups of polygamous Mormons.

Historical Background. In the early years of Mormonism, monogamy was declared to be the only acceptable expression of marriage. In the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), monogamy was set forth in the Article on Marriage (then sec. 101), which stated that “one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

Though the young church was formally monogamous, Robert Woodford states that when the Saints gathered at Kirtland, Ohio, in August 1835 to approve the D&C as scripture, a curious objection occurred. Two articles written by Oliver Cowdery were read and ordered to be placed in D&C by a vote of the church. One article was a statement on governments and laws that now appears as section 134 of D&C. The other article was read by William W. Phelps as shown in the following minutes: “President Wm. W. Phelps read the material dealing with the stated rules for marriage among the saints, and the whole church voted to receive it. Joseph Smith was not in attendance in this meeting and, therefore, was not able to voice his opinion concerning these statements; however, he evidently let it be known that at least this one did not meet with his approval” (Woodford, 3:1834).

Robert J. Woodford points out that given Smith’s opposition to the Article on Marriage, it is noteworthy that he did not remove it from later editions of D&C. However, throughout the 1830s most church members were not ready to receive a revelation endorsing polygamy since polygamy was strongly condemned in the Book of Mormon.

The 1876 edition of the D&C replaced the Article on Marriage with Smith’s 1843 revelation on polygamy (sec. 132). This change is quite significant, for the D&C now declared that the “new and everlasting covenant” included both celestial marriage (marriage for time and eternity) and earthly plural marriage. Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn explains that polygamy then became a critical part of Mormon doctrine and the church’s mission. Church authorities went so far as to say that plural marriage was so important to Mormonism that to do away with it would be the destruction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

However, Utah was seeking statehood in the 1870s, a status that would grant it more liberty than would persistence as a territory, and the practice of polygamy was a severe obstacle to statehood. The US Congress passed laws addressing bigamy and polygamy in 1862, 1874, and 1882, making it a criminal behavior. The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 was passed for the purpose of disincorporating the church and receiving its assets because it sanctioned plural marriage. In September 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued “the Manifesto” (Official Declaration 1 in current editions of the D&C), immediately and solemnly prohibiting any further practice of plural marriage, either as a ritual in the temples or as a practice throughout the territory. Woodruff’s revelation undoubtedly arose from political expediency, and it took a good twenty years or more for the “official” declaration of 1890 to become established in practice.

Although abandonment of plural marriage was not immediate, eventually the principle of monogamy became universal throughout the church, notwithstanding objections of “fundamentalists” and others who pointed to endorsement of plural marriage by previous prophets and apostles.

Theological Considerations. Polygamy has consistently been a controversial issue for the Mormon church, especially given that Joseph Smith advocated it, declaring the practice to be the most important doctrine ever given to man and essential to one’s exaltation in the celestial kingdom. The later theology of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young ties plural marriage directly to salvation.

Mormon documents present a changing perspective on plural marriage. The church’s earliest and foundational scripture, the Book of Mormon (1830), condemns polygamy in multiple locations. It is a “wicked practice” (Jacob 1:15), a “crime” committed by those who “seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms” (Jacob 2:23). The polygamy of David and Solomon “was abominable before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24), who demands monogamy (Jacob 2:27). In Mosiah 11:1–2, polygamy is associated with sin, abomination, “whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.” Wicked king Riplakish had “many wives and concubines,” which was evil “in the sight of the Lord” (Ether 10:5), and “he did afflict the people with his whoredoms” (10:7).

A scant five years later, Oliver Cowdery’s disputed section 101 became part of the D&C. Though the text endorses monogamy, the introduction admits that “this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy,” suggesting that the problem was not restricted to a few errant members. In truth there was an unpublished revelation in 1831 for already-married men to “take unto [them] wives of the Lamanites and Nephites” in their missionary work, but this revelation was not disclosed to most of the Saints.

Smith’s revelation on plural marriage (D&C 132) became public knowledge another fifteen years or so later (ca. 1850–52), but section 132 did not become scripture until 1876, as noted earlier. Fourteen years later, the church evolved again, with the Manifesto of 1890 abrogating the commands of section 132.

A distinct feature of Mormonism is its claim to be the restored church. In this schema, not long after the completion of the New Testament, the church succumbed to false teaching, lost the true gospel, and fell into apostasy. This lasted until the nineteenth century, when God raised up Joseph Smith Jr. as his servant, the recipient of the restored gospel. So in the early 1830s and beyond, the Mormon Church considered itself to be the restoration of God’s truth. Brigham Young taught that plural marriage was part of the restored gospel. In a revealing message printed in the Journal of Discourses, he states that according to the word of the Lord,

if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “we will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc.”—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. (JD 11:268–69)

No less emphatic regarding the importance of plural marriage, Heber Kimball declared that opponents of plural marriage are listening to demons, condemned, and subject to God’s curse. To repudiate plural marriage is to deny Mormonism. Polygamy is a holy principle and the means of salvation for mankind (JD 5:203–4).

Orson Pratt, considered one of Mormonism’s greatest intellectuals and defenders, heartily defended polygamy in his sermon “God’s Ancient People Polygamists.” According to Pratt, Mormons stand to be condemned if they fail to accept plural marriage. He rebuked those who refused to enter into the principle, and he made this important observation: it is irrational to believe in the authority of the living prophet and yet refuse to abide by the prophet’s authority.

If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme; it is an absurdity that exists because of the ignorance of some people. I have been astonished at it. I did hope there was more intelligence among Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle than to suppose that any one can be a member of this Church in good standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. Now here comes in our consciences. We have either to renounce Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Covenants, and the whole system of things as taught by the Latter-day Saints, and say that God has not raised up a church, has not raised up a prophet, has not begun to restore all things as he promised, we are obliged to do this, or else to say, with all our hearts, “Yes, we are polygamists, we believe in the principle, and we are willing to practice it, because God has spoken from the heavens.” (JD 17:224)

Pratt understood plural marriage to be a binding principle that was not optional for members of the Mormon Church. If it was indeed revealed to the church by God—and he firmly believed such to be the case—then plural marriage was to be practiced.

In the decades preceding 1890, Wilford Woodruff stated that the demise of polygamy meant the end of Mormonism. He made it clear that by God’s command Mormons were to bear testimony to the revealed truth of plural marriage, regardless of the consequences. However, in 1890 Woodruff presented his revelation regarding polygamy known as the Manifesto, which brought to an end the practice of plural marriage.

The records of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make it clear that these men were unmistakably committed to the practice of plural marriage, considering it a nonnegotiable, doctrinal truth. They understood it to be essential to the very salvation of humankind and the only means by which one could enter into the celestial kingdom.

Given the obvious importance plural marriage was given in Mormonism prior to the manifesto of 1890, what do contemporary Mormons say about the practice? Modern Mormons do not agree that polygamy was of any great importance. Richard Winwood claims that according to Mormon doctrine, “plural marriage is not an essential principle of the gospel, nor is it preferable to monogamy. . . . Today, because God forbids the practice, all who engage in plural marriage are guilty of great wickedness and are subject to excommunication from the Church” (30, 31). Stephen Robinson, one of Mormonism’s more popular and widely read theologians, essentially teaches that plural marriage is neither a universally binding practice nor an important gospel principle (92).

The demise of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints poses several significant challenges to the church. First, the continuity of doctrinal truth is called into question. If leaders such as Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and Heber Kimball were convinced that plural marriage was not only part of the restored gospel but essential to the very identity of and foundational to Mormonism, then why would it be terminated? Such changes not only bring discontinuity but also leave the church wide open to theological relativism, which means there are no doctrines in Mormonism that cannot change in the due course of time.

Second, there is discontinuity between church authorities. Though Mormons embrace both the standard works and the living prophet, the problem they face is, Which authority is to be followed? The historical theology or doctrinal development of plural marriage appears to be fraught with difficulty. It is part of the authoritative D&C yet condemned in the Book of Mormon. Early Mormon theologians such as Orson Pratt understood it to be foundational to the very integrity of Mormonism, as did Brigham Young, yet in 1890 it would be done away with, and anyone practicing it would be subject to excommunication. Though today it is considered relatively unimportant by modern Mormon scholars, their position on polygamy contradicts the teachings of respected Mormon leaders and theologians of the nineteenth century.

Third, if the doctrine of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith Jr. and considered by other Mormon leaders and authorities to be part of the restored gospel, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the abandonment of plural marriage in 1890 constituted an apostasy from the fullness of the gospel. To get around this problem, one explanation is that plural marriage is reserved for those who make it to the celestial kingdom. But early Mormon teaching indicates plural marriage to be the very means by which one is granted access to the celestial kingdom.

Bibliography. T. Compton, “A Trajectory of Plurality: An Overview of Joseph Smith’s Thirty-Three Plural Wives,” Dialogue; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith; H. Kimball, “Reformation—Satisfaction Should Be Made to Parties Aggrieved—Practical Religion, &c,” in JD 5; C. Miles, “Polygamy and the Economics of Salvation,” Sunstone; O. Pratt, “God’s Ancient People Polygamists [. . .],” in JD 17; D. M. Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power; Quinn, The New Mormon History; S. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?; R. S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History; R. Winwood, Take Heed That Ye Be Not Deceived; R. Woodford, The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants.

S. J. Rost and E. Pement

POLYGAMY. Polygamy is the practice of taking multiple marriage partners (from the Greek term meaning “many marriages”) and has been accepted throughout human history. Polygamy was widely practiced in the ancient world and continues to be practiced in a few nations to this day. Several figures of the Old Testament, such as Abraham, David, and Solomon, had multiple wives, but by the time of the New Testament, monogamy was the generally accepted custom among Jews and later Christians. Interestingly, according to W. Luck, “When Henry VIII sought the counsel of [Martin] Luther on the morality of divorcing Catherine, he was told that it would be a lesser evil to simply marry Anne Boleyn as well! This is not considered the best advice of the German reformer” (228).

Among contemporary world religions, only Islam is still commonly associated with polygamy. This practice is often justified by the fact that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, reportedly had as many as twelve wives, and the Qur’an permits men to marry as many as four (sura 4:3), though most Muslims are monogamous. In Hinduism, Krishna, a leading diety, is said to have had over sixteen thousand wives, and polygamy was originally a part of the culture in which Hinduism grew, but modern Hinduism has largely abandoned the practice.

Few groups that desire to identify with Christianity would embrace the practice of polygamy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) did practice polygamy in its early history but has not advocated it since the late nineteenth century, when the viewpoint ran afoul of an act of Congress and US Supreme Court rulings. Only small breakaway organizations from Mormonism support polygamy today. Other than Mormonism, there are a few independent advocates of polygamy who are not associated with any cult or religious organization but defend the practice on religious grounds. For example, a group calling itself an “Organization for Christian Polygamy,” founded by Mark Henkel, maintains a website at truthbearer.org in defense of polygamy, based on biblical teachings. The group otherwise identifies itself with evangelical teachings.

Bibliography. W. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View; M. Zietzen, Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.

J. P. Holding and E. Pement

POLYTHEISM. The worship or acknowledgment of multiple deities constitutes polytheism. First, I will provide an overview of the varieties of gods worshiped or acknowledged by polytheists. Second, I will classify polytheists by their attitudes toward these gods. Third, I will outline the roots of polytheism’s contemporary popularity. Finally, I will provide an overview of Christian responses to polytheism now and in former periods.

Varieties of Gods. Jordan Paper distinguishes five categories of deities acknowledged or worshiped by polytheists today (14–15). The first is that of cosmic deities, such as the sun, the moon, the stars, and forces that govern weather. The second consists in spirits of animals, plants, and minerals, which figure prominently in shamanism. The third is that of ancestral spirits, usually honored only within extended families. The fourth comprises nonancestral ghosts (usually contacted through mediums) revered throughout a community or culture. The fifth is that of culture heroes such as Heracles and Prometheus, whom human beings rarely venerate but who play central roles in myths. To Paper’s categories, one may reasonably add two: avatars or other manifestations of a single deity, frequently identified with the substance of the universe, and professedly mythological hypostatizations of elementary principles or impulses. Deities of the last category loom especially large in the forms of polytheism popular in Western societies today.

Most polytheists of all times have worshiped or acknowledged deities from several of the categories just enumerated. Shamans, for instance, besides performing acts with the aid of animal and plant spirits, frequently serve as mediums through whom one attempts to contact both ancestral and nonancestral ghosts. Countless persons who worship the sun, the moon, and the stars, moreover, delight in relating tales of culture heroes to young people in order to imbue them with the ethos of their community. Those who regard their narratives about gods as transparent fictions, similarly, often invoke a kaleidoscopic variety of deities.

Varieties of Polytheists. Less permeable boundaries seem to separate what one might call literal and figurative polytheists, the latter being persons who naively assent to tales about gods and goddesses and those who treat them as useful fictions. One ought not to distinguish too sharply between these groups, however, for two reasons. First, contemporary persons attracted to paganism, who belong to the second class initially, frequently slide at least functionally into the first as their religious practice grows more serious. Second, persons who belong at least functionally in the literal camp frequently respond to criticism of their faith by disputing the importance or meaningfulness of questions about its truth or falsehood. Polytheists and their spiritualities, to say the least, defy easy classification.

Sources of Contemporary Polytheism. The contemporary vogue for polytheism, it seems, derives from at least six sources. The first is Jungian psychology. Carl Jung and his followers teach that human beings require powerful symbols to divert their psychic energy from mundane tasks to higher cultural pursuits. The mythologies of polytheistic civilizations contain symbols of enormous power to move the human spirit. Predictably, therefore, Jungians commonly regard polytheistic mythology as a fruitful resource for the elevation of human consciousness.

The second root of polytheism’s contemporary popularity lies in many persons’ disillusionment with Christianity. Something must fill the vacuum left by the erosion of Christian faith in Western culture, and polytheistic spiritualities, to a certain extent, are fulfilling this role. Third, polytheism appeals to anti-Semites in Europe and North America. In order to liberate themselves from Jewish-influenced Christianity and its antiracist morals, neo-Nazi groups frequently seek to revive some form of ancient European paganism. Indeed, anti-Semitic neo-paganism played a central role in shaping the ideology of the original Nazi movement.

Fourth, ironically, polytheism seems conducive to religious tolerance. Especially in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, many persons have come to view polytheism, according to which multiple gods can be equally real and legitimate, as preferable to monotheistic faiths, which cannot consistently acknowledge other religions’ gods. Fifth, many contemporary persons are hostile toward authority. Whereas monotheistic religions typically portray human beings as automatically obliged to worship and obey God, certain polytheistic traditions regard devotion to particular gods as optional. Persons who harbor antiauthoritarian sentiments, naturally, find the latter approach to human-divine relations more congenial than the former.

A sixth root of contemporary enthusiasm for polytheism lies in its consonance with the ethical pluralism characteristic of today’s world. Contemporary persons tend, in practice at least, to acknowledge several ultimate goods and to adjudicate conflicts between them on an ad hoc basis. Monotheistic religions, by contrast, typically recognize only one ultimate good—namely, God—and demand that human beings subordinate all else to him. One can reasonably trace polytheism’s contemporary attractiveness, therefore, to six principal roots: Jungian psychology, mass disaffection from Christianity, the mutual affinity of Nazism and neo-paganism, polytheism’s seeming conduciveness to tolerance, widespread hostility to authority, and ethical pluralism, the polytheism of values.

Christian Responses to Polytheism. Historically, Christians have responded to polytheism in at least three ways. First, they have sought to demythologize pagan gods. Ancient Christian authors, for instance, sought to falsify claims that pagan gods brought benefits to those who worshiped them and to expose myths about these gods as palpable frauds. Indeed, early Christian missionaries frequently destroyed sacred oaks and other monuments to pagan deities and then employed these deities’ failure to avenge themselves as arguments against their existence or power (cf. Judg. 6:31). Present-day Christians might fruitfully supplement these efforts by observing that contemporary neo-pagan cults bear little genuine resemblance to the ancient polytheistic religions from which they claim descent.

Second, ancient Christians frequently called attention to the ethical failures of the gods of Greek myth and the atrocities, such as the sacrifice of infants, these gods sometimes demanded of their devotees. A tribe as prone to incest, murder, deceit, and petty quarreling as the Greek gods were, they argued, merited censure rather than praise from decent human beings. In a contemporary setting, likewise, one might call attention to the role of paganism in fostering murderous hatred in the Nazi era and today. One might also note that even the most benign forms of polytheism tend to encourage a relativism that weakens human beings’ resolve to combat encroachments on human dignity.

Third, Christians of all ages have argued on philosophical grounds that polytheistic theologies are either incoherent or flatly contradictory to the data of human experience. Contemporary scientists, for instance, have good reason to believe that precisely the same physical laws operate in every sector of the universe. This is precisely what one would expect if the universe derived from a single Creator. It would seem highly counterintuitive, however, if the universe derived from a heterogeneous medley of deities.

Conclusion. Contemporary polytheism, therefore, seems especially liable to criticism on the grounds of its historical inauthenticity, its record of fostering hatred, and its discordance with the uniformity of the laws of nature. An effective apologetic against polytheistic religions, however, must combine criticisms of neuralgic points such as these with responses to the roots of polytheism’s resurgence and with appreciation of the extraordinary diversity of polytheistic beliefs and practices.

See also PRANA; YOGA

Bibliography. Sri Swami Sivananda, The Science of Pranayama.

H. P. Kemp

PRASADAM. In Sanskrit prasadam means “the Lord’s mercy.” Prasadam is ritually prepared food or drink that has been offered to a Hindu deity by devotees during worship. Persons who handle prasadam believe that when it is properly prepared and offered, the deity to whom it is presented “consumes” a portion of it, leaving his divine mark on the remains. These sacred leftovers are later distributed to worshipers of the deity as a token of his favor and as a means of their spiritual development. Since it is thought to have holy qualities, devotees cannot refuse prasadam when it is offered to them, and they are forbidden to dispose of it under any circumstances. Foods mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita as being appropriate for prasadam include grains, nuts, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and milk. Meat, fish, eggs, mushrooms, onions, garlic, coffee, and alcohol all are considered unfit for prasadam. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) requires its members to consult a detailed set of instructions that regulate the preparation of food offered to Krishna. In contemporary Hindu practice in India, the desire to get prasadam and have darshana (i.e., a vision of, or being in the presence of, the divine) are the two major motivations of pilgrimages and temple visits.

Bibliography. S. R. Dasa, Devotional Practice; R. S. Khare, The Eternal Food: Gastronomic Ideas and Experiences of Hindus and Buddhists; N. Rajan, Prasadam: Food of the Hindu Gods.

J. Bjornstad

PRATT, ORSON. Born to Jared and Charity Pratt on September 19, 1811, in Washington County, New York, Orson Pratt was probably the most influential apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) during its early years, despite his very limited formal education. Not only did he write several works on topics relating to Mormonism; he also wrote on subjects pertaining to mathematics and astronomy. Many of his theories regarding astronomy were printed in LDS periodicals, though modern science has found several of his ideas to be flawed.

He joined Joseph Smith Jr.’s new movement shortly after it was formed in 1830. Baptized on his nineteenth birthday by his older brother Parley P. Pratt in 1830, he became an apostle in the church in 1835.

A very strong proponent of polygamy, he had seven wives and forty-five children. In August 1852, Pratt was asked by LDS president Brigham Young to publicly announce the practice of plural marriage at a special missionary conference. Pratt’s ardent defense of polygamy would lead to his appointment by Young to publish a periodical called the Seer. Its purpose was to make clear “the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as revealed in both ancient and modern Revelations” (1). In this work, Pratt argued that God the Father and Jesus Christ were both practicing polygamists (172) and that God the Father personally “begat Jesus” through the Virgin Mary (158). He also maintained that God the Father “was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father” (132).

Pratt also carried Mormon doctrine to its logical conclusions by expounding on the teaching that Mormon men who eventually became Gods would also receive worship just as mortals now worship God the Father (Seer, 37). The Seer ran from January 1853 to August 1854.

Recognized as a fearless debater, Pratt was also a man who was known to speak his mind, even when it contradicted his ecclesiastical colleagues. At times this got him into trouble with both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. His firm belief that God was always omniscient ran counter to Young’s teachings that God was progressing in knowledge. Pratt also believed that Adam was made from the dust of this earth, whereas Young held that both Adam and Eve had earned their exaltation elsewhere. Said Young, “Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth” (3:319). Pratt also vehemently disagreed with Young’s Adam-God doctrine, which was first introduced by the Mormon prophet at a general conference in April 1852. Ultimately time has vindicated apostle Pratt’s opposition to Young on these issues. Modern Mormonism denounces the idea that God is progressing in knowledge or that Adam is God, even though Mormonism’s second president stubbornly defended both of these doctrines.

Defying the leadership of the church brought consequences. On April 10, 1875, Brigham Young rearranged the order of seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve, thus placing three others ahead of Pratt. Had it not been for this realignment, Pratt would have succeeded Young as Mormonism’s third president.

Diabetes took the life of Orson Pratt on October 3, 1881, at the age of seventy.

Bibliography. O. Pratt, The Essential Orson Pratt; Pratt, The Seer; R. S. Van Wagoner and S. C. Walker, A Book of Mormons; Brigham Young, “Disinclination of Men to Learn [. . .],” in JD 3.

W. McKeever

PRATT, PARLEY. Born in Burlington, New York, Parley Pratt (1807–57) converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) on September 1, 1830, and was baptized by Oliver Cowdery, a close associate of LDS founder Joseph Smith Jr. On the same day, he was ordained an elder. On his first missionary journey, he baptized his former minister, Sidney Rigdon, as well as his younger brother Orson. On June 6, 1831, Joseph Smith ordained Parley to the high priesthood. Both Parley and Orson would later become apostles in Joseph Smith’s church.

Parley Pratt is credited with writing several Mormon hymns and, like his brother Orson, was also involved in publishing books and periodicals that defended the Mormon faith.

A practicing polygamist, he had a total of twelve wives, the most controversial of whom was Eleanor J. McComb McLean. McLean was not yet divorced from her husband, Hector, when Brigham Young sealed her to Parley in marriage. Hector vowed to kill Pratt and did so on May 13, 1857.

Bibliography. R. S. Van Wagoner and S. C. Walker, A Book of Mormons.

W. McKeever

PRATYEKA BUDDHA. A (Sanskrit) Pratyeka (Pali, Pacceka) Buddha is a solitary person who attains perfect insight into the interdependent origination of all things by means of his own rigorous spiritual practices, apart from having been taught by an enlightened instructor. Such Buddhas are thought to exist only during those periods of history in which the dharma (Buddhist teachings) have been lost. They are neither willing nor able to teach other devotees about the doctrines of Buddhism but speak (occasionally) only concerning matters of ethics and ritual practice. Unlike bodhisattvas, who return to the world of illusion after attaining enlightenment so as to help unenlightened beings in their quest for liberation, Pratyeka Buddhas enter nirvana at the first opportunity, leaving all other beings behind. Differing schools of Buddhism debate whether the choice of a Pratyeka Buddha not to aid his fellow beings is selfish and whether Pratyeka Buddhas are all-knowing. Pratyeka Buddhas are esteemed more highly in Theravada Buddhism than in Mahayana Buddhism.

Bibliography. R. Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism; P. Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices; M. Wijayaratna, Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition.

H. W. House

PREEXISTENCE, MORMON VIEW OF. Preexistence in Mormon theology is the pre-earth life of the spirit children of God. These spirit children of God are both male and female, possessing spirit bodies composed of a pure, refined substance. As with all spirit children, Jesus Christ and Lucifer (who were also preexistent spirit children) were born through the procreative act of heavenly parents. According to Heavenly Father’s plan, Jesus was selected to be the savior of the world, but Lucifer desired this role as well. In response Lucifer offered to come to earth and exercise dominion over humankind by imposing salvation on even the unwilling. Lucifer’s proposal was in direct conflict with free agency, so his offer was rejected. In response Lucifer rebelled against his father and influenced one-third of the spirit children to follow him. As a result of this rebellion, Lucifer became Satan and the spirit children who followed him in his rebellion became demons.

The preexistent state is the first stage in the overall eternal progression of the spirit child toward final exaltation. In the preexistent state, spirit children exercise agency, which is the ability to choose between good and evil. If, in the preexistent state, spirit children exercise their free agency wisely, they are sent to earth to receive mortal bodies, which is the second phase of eternal progression.

During the earthly sojourn, individuals are put through what Joseph Fielding Smith describes as mortal probation. Through this process, each person must make choices, either good or evil. The wise use of agency is membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, baptism, temple marriage, adherence to temple rituals, and overall obedience to the fullness of the gospel. At death those who have persevered in their commitment to the fullness of the gospel enter into the celestial kingdom and, through ongoing wise use of agency, eventually achieve exaltation.

Bibliography. B. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine; B. Ostler, “The Idea of Preexistence in Mormon Thought,” in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine; R. Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons.

S. J. Rost

PROCESS THEOLOGY. Process thought can be traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus in 500 BC, with its present form originating in the early twentieth century with mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. Only after being sufficiently developed by philosopher Charles Hartshorne, a student of the Whiteheadian system, did process theology gain prominence in its challenge to classical and biblical theism. A natural theology with an appeal to scientific verification and experiential accessibility, process theology has been highly influential in the theological scholarship of the second half of the twentieth century, particularly among non-evangelicals. Noted process theologians include John B. Cobb Jr., David Ray Griffin, Norman Pittenger, Schubert Ogden, Daniel Day Williams, Ewert Cousins, and others.

Process theology departs from historical Christian tenets on the doctrines of the nature of God, the nature and work of Jesus, and the sin nature of humans, particularly as it is defined by classical or Thomistic theism. Process, or becoming, rather than being, is fundamental to its views of creation, reality, and God. To be actual is to be in process. Whereas human existence is understood to be in process “for a time,” God is understood to be always in process, continually surpassing himself as he changes through experience.

God and the world are thought to be inseparable. Process theologians distinguish their system of belief from pantheism (all is God), preferring instead the term panentheism (all is in God). God and the world are not identical, but the events and experiences of the world are encompassed within the life of God. Human freedom is paramount, and God’s actions are limited to persuasion, rather than intervention, in luring creation toward more creative and more satisfying aesthetic goals.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), the son of an Anglican vicar, had an early interest in theology that faded in adulthood. After a full academic career in mathematics and in philosophy of science at Cambridge, Whitehead accepted a chair of philosophy at Harvard, where his interest in metaphysics and philosophical theism developed.

Whitehead was not unaffected by the revolution taking place within the scientific world during his lifetime. On the heels of the advent of Darwin’s Origin of the Species came Einstein’s theories of relativity and the reexamination of long-held tenets of physics. Within this atmosphere, Whitehead took upon himself an investigation into a philosophy of nature, a study that later played a part in his process theism. Whitehead developed his metaphysical system based on process in his work Process and Reality.

Whitehead’s distinctive view of reality utilized the atomic theory: actual events are made up of smaller, atomic events of extremely short duration. Time also is not continuous but comes into being in small bundles, perishing immediately and giving rise to the next bundle, or event. In a reversal of the ordinary understanding of a cause producing an effect, Whitehead understood the lapse of time between these atomic events, or “actual occasions,” to mean that an occasion actively produces itself out of past, perished events. Whitehead fashioned the word prehension to refer to the way in which each event spontaneously and creatively takes account of past data, unifies those data, and produces itself. Personal human existence is seen as a “society of occasions,” a series of ordered individual occasions of experience.

Creatio ex nihilo, the biblical doctrine that God created the world out of nothing, is rejected by process theology. Instead, process theology views the world as fashioned from preexistent matter in a process that allows for the creative self-determination of each occasion. Hartshorne held the view that this universe was created out of an earlier universe, which was created from an earlier one, ad infinitum.

Relatedness is essential to the process view of reality and ties the world’s significance to its ability to affect God and enrich his experience. The immutable God of classical theism is understood by process theologians to be static and unable to respond to human experience and suffering. Completeness or perfection as an attribute of God is unacceptable to the process thinker, who understands it to mean that God would be incapable of existing in relationship. In process theology, God does not exist substantively apart from his relatedness to other events and occasions and therefore must have a world to which he can relate. Hartshorne reasoned that whereas God was free to create a world different from this one, he was never free not to create.

Whitehead fashioned a dipolar system in which he described God as having two poles or natures, a primordial nature and a consequent nature. Hartshorne identifies the two poles as an abstract (transcendent) pole and a concrete (contingent) pole. Regarding God’s consequent/concrete pole, Whitehead and Hartshorne are largely in agreement, understanding the pole to be the world and the actualization of God’s potentialities. In this pole, God is temporal, relative, finite, and constantly changing as he responds in empathy to worldly beings. God’s knowledge is limited to what is knowable up to that moment. He knows the events as they happen, and he responds to them as the “fellow sufferer who understands.” Open theism bears a likeness to process thought on this point.

Hartshorne’s view of the other pole is distinguishable from Whitehead’s, in that Hartshorne interprets the primordial/abstract pole to be what God is eternally, at every moment in his life, and Hartshorne refers to this pole as absolute, transcendent, necessary, eternal, or immutable. Whitehead represents this pole as the creative activity that persuasively nudges the universe to new and novel achievements by providing an “initial aim” to which every actuality can aspire. As such the primordial/abstract pole is a limitless reservoir of possibilities and is persuasive, adventurous, creative, and focused on promoting the enjoyment of each actuality. Process thinkers will refer to the abstract pole as the “mind” or “soul” of God and to the world as the “body” of God, what he is as an actualized entity.

John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, in their work Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition, present the dipolar nature of God as a wholly integrated unit. Therefore, they recognize a point of affinity with the Taoist notion of the Tao, in which the two dimensions of the power that moves the universe, the “feminine and masculine (yin and yang),” are in perfect harmony, an element they deem to be worthy of inclusion in the Christian view of God.

Logos is identified with the primordial nature and is seen as the “initial aim” provided to help an actuality or on occasion produce itself in a way that will be novel and enjoyable. The incarnate Logos is called Christ and is not uniquely identified with Jesus but is seen as a creative transformation available to all. Jesus is viewed as a man more fully open to the Logos than any other human, rather than as the absolutely unique, second member of the Godhead in human flesh. In this sense, process theologians will speak of the Christ presence in Jesus. Different in degree rather than in kind, Jesus is seen as completely and fully human and divine only in the sense that he was a special instrument of God’s presence and activity.

Process theology rejects the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, a Godhead of three persons consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, the trinitarian language used in process theology is used in a modalistic manner, referring to a “triunity” of principles representing the manner in which God acts or to different aspects of the creative process.

The existence of evil in the world is not seen as the outgrowth of a fallen human nature in process theology. A dipolar God can only hope to persuade creation to move toward loftier goals but cannot control the choices made by earthly creatures. Evil, then, over which he has no control and no power to stop, exists. Although God feels for his creatures in their suffering, he is not culpable for their suffering. All experiences, both good and bad, are taken up into the life and memory of God and harmonized, thus making right the wrongs of the world.

Critics of process theology point out that a forced dichotomous choice between classical theism and process theology is unnecessary and sets up a “straw man” argument. Without embracing panentheism, one can still affirm a biblically sound doctrine of a God who is unchanging in attributes, character, and purposes and who, at the same time, lovingly interacts with his creation.

Process thought draws criticism for failing to adequately address the most fundamental of metaphysical questions: Why is there anything at all? What is the ultimate source of the universe? Critics also propose that process theology fails to explain how God’s infinite potentialities become actualized in a concrete world since potentiality cannot actualize itself. The appeal to “creativity” that is often made in process thought does not satisfactorily answer these questions but instead brings into the discussion another, ill-defined entity with a status seemingly above God.

Essentially anthropocentric in approach, process theology sees the actualization of human potential in the service of a better world as its goal. Biblical theists are theocentric and place ultimate value on service to the glory of God and his kingdom rather than on personal enrichment.

Bibliography. J. B. Cobb Jr., A Christian Natural Theology based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead; J. B. Cobb Jr. and D. R. Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition; L. S. Ford, The Lure of God: A Biblical Background for Process Theism; R. Gruenler, The Inexhaustible God: Biblical Faith and the Challenge of Process Theism; C. Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God; R. Nash, ed., Process Theology; A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology.

M. Stewart

PROVIDENCE OF GOD. The word providence refers to God’s control over his creation. It concerns God’s superintendence of history and his working to fulfill his good purposes in the world. Christians have traditionally held that God’s providential control is meticulous. God guides the events in his creation so that nothing happens that is outside his plan and over which he has no control. This is a “no risk” view of providence according to which there are no accidents in God’s creation. God leaves nothing to chance.

Several Christian confessions articulate the view of meticulous providence. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith says that “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (chap. 3) and that “God . . . doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even unto the least, by His most wise and holy providence” (chap. 5).

There is much biblical support for God’s meticulous providence over his creation. One key text is Daniel 4:35, in which King Nebuchadnezzar declares of God: “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What are you doing?’” We are told that God does his will in his creation, even when it comes to the lives of human beings. Paul also tells us that God “accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Eph. 1:11). Further evidence of God’s meticulous providence includes Jesus’s teaching that the hairs of our heads are numbered and that creatures as insignificant as sparrows do not fall to the ground without God’s knowledge (Matt. 10:29–30). Further, Christians are assured that “all things work together for good for those who love God” (Rom. 8:28). And David expressed his confidence that God had ordained the course of his life before he was born (Ps. 139:16).

Biblical support for meticulous providence is also found in the covenantal structure of Scripture. In 2 Timothy 1:9, we read that God gave us the grace to be found in Christ “before the ages began” (cf. Titus 1:2). This appears to indicate that the fall and God’s subsequent plan of redemption (cf. Gen. 3:15) were not an ad hoc “Plan B” after an original experiment in the garden failed. Rather, God intended to redeem fallen sinners from all eternity, which means that the fall and the historical unfolding of the covenant of grace leading to the first advent of Christ were God’s one and only plan—a plan that he meticulously guided to its completion, as Peter declared at Pentecost (Acts 2:23).

The “no risk” view of providence is not without its problems, however. At first glance, it would seem to conflict with human freedom and responsibility. In fact, an argument may be constructed to attempt to prove that God’s meticulous providence is incompatible with human freedom and responsibility:

1. If God exercises meticulous providence, then no human being could do other than he or she does (i.e., no human being has free will).

2. If no human being could do other than he does, then no human being is morally responsible for his actions.

3. Hence, if God exercises meticulous providence, then no human being is morally responsible for his actions.

The upshot of this argument is that it would force a choice between human freedom and God’s meticulous providence. That is, assuming the argument is sound, we would have to either give up on human freedom and responsibility or weaken our view of divine providence.

Christian thinkers have attempted to address this problem in several ways. Perhaps the simplest is to accept the conclusion of the above argument and reject the “no risk” view of providence. This is the strategy of those who hold the view known as open theism. On this view, God exercises not meticulous providence but only a general providence. God establishes certain structures or boundaries that delimit what free creatures are able to do, but within those boundaries free creatures are free to make choices that are not controlled, intended, or planned by God. That is, God allows human beings to make free choices within the general framework he has created. Many of the events that take place in creation have no specific, God-ordained purpose. Indeed, in this view, many things may happen in creation that God does not want to happen. Though God does have a general plan for his creation, many of the details of that plan are determined by the choices of human beings. Of course, as open theists admit, this view of providence introduces significant risk into God’s plan, with the result that things may not turn out exactly as God would have them.

The “risk” view of providence has difficulty, however, reconciling itself with the biblical data outlined above that seem to indicate that God exercises meticulous control over his creation. Moreover, when we introduce risk into God’s plan, it is difficult to see how we can have any confidence that God will be able to fulfill his promises to his redeemed people. Many aspects of God’s plan of redemption as revealed in Scripture require the cooperation of human beings (e.g., Abraham’s obedience to God’s call and Pilate’s complicity in Jesus’s crucifixion). But if God exercises no control over the choices of human beings, then it is possible that his plan of redemption could fail. Because of these and other significant problems associated with open theism (especially its denial of God’s foreknowledge of future human choices), most evangelicals do not see this approach to the puzzle of providence and freedom as a viable option.

Among those who take a “no risk” view of providence, we may distinguish three different approaches to resolving the problem. One is called Ockhamism (after the medieval philosopher William of Ockham). According to this view, God controls the future by utilizing his foreknowledge of what human beings will freely choose. That is, since God knows what each person will do at every point in the future, he may, like a grand chess master, act in history so as to guide events toward his desired goals without violating human freedom. For example, suppose God knew ahead of time that terrorists would destroy the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He also knows that a businessman named Jack plans to be in the WTC on that day, but God does not want Jack to be killed. So God causes a truck to blow a tire and block the freeway, preventing Jack from making it to the WTC that day. The Ockhamist, then, denies premise 1 of the above argument, claiming that God’s exercising meticulous providence does not imply that human beings cannot do other than they do. It only implies that God, using his foresight, intervenes in human affairs when necessary to influence (and sometimes prevent) certain events.

The problem for the Ockhamist, though, is that it is unclear how God’s foreknowledge gives him the kind of providential control described in the above scenario. For what God foreknows is not simply what might happen but what will happen. That is, every event that he foreknows will inevitably take place. Prior to any intervention on God’s part, he already knows whether the truck blows a tire, whether Jack makes it to the WTC, and whether he is killed in the explosion. How then can God use his foreknowledge of what will take place to intervene and alter any course of events? Since God infallibly knows everything that will occur, the future is already set in exhaustive detail. God cannot utilize his foreknowledge, then, to alter what he foresees; otherwise he would not have foreseen it in the first place.

Another “no risk” view of providence is called Molinism (after the Jesuit philosopher Luis de Molina). Like Ockhamism, Molinism denies premise 1 of the argument against the compatibility of freedom and providence. According to Molinism, God has a type of knowledge known as “middle knowledge,” which refers to God’s knowledge not simply of what will or might happen but of what free agents would do in hypothetical or counterfactual circumstances. This means that God knows a particular class of statements called counterfactuals of freedom, statements about free agents that take the form, “If person S were placed in circumstance C, then S would do action x.” God is alleged to know these kinds of statements even if person S never actually exists or circumstance C never actually occurs, and he knows them prior to his creation of the world.

If God were to have such middle knowledge, he would be able to meticulously control the course of history by creating that possible world (i.e., maximal set of circumstances) where free creatures freely choose to do those things that God wants them to do. So before creating the world, God observes all the possible worlds that he might create, and he creates that world in which the choices of human beings most closely approximate his plan for history. And once he creates that world, the course of history will unfold as God intends in every detail. God thus has strong control over his creation without endangering human freedom or responsibility.

One potential difficulty for Molinism, however, has to do with whether there could be any true counterfactuals of freedom. If human beings have free will, so that nothing determines their actions, then arguably there is no means to know what a free agent would do in a hypothetical situation. If not, then God cannot have middle knowledge.

Perhaps a more serious problem is the apparent weakening of divine providence in the Molinist view. It is not up to God but to free creatures to determine which counterfactuals of freedom are true. Thus, if God (before he creates) has a particular plan for how he would like history to turn out, his ability to fulfill that plan is entirely consequent on what the free creatures he might create would do. This entails the notion that God is able to create a world that closely matches his plan only if he is lucky! Despite its allowance for the meticulous unfolding of God’s plan after creation, Molinism does seem to diminish God’s sovereignty in this way.

All of the first three solutions to the providence-freedom puzzle assume a view of freedom known as libertarianism. According to libertarianism, a person has free will (and moral responsibility) just in case he has the “ability to do otherwise,” which means that when an agent chooses to do some action x, in the very same circumstances, he could have refrained from doing x. It is the assumption of libertarianism that motivates both the Ockhamist and the Molinist to reject premise 1 of the argument for the incompatibility of providence and freedom.

A third “no risk” view, however, rejects libertarianism and grants the truth of premise 1: providence does imply that people cannot do other than what they do. This view, known as compatibilism, rejects the second premise instead. The compatibilist argues that not having the ability to do otherwise does not undermine moral responsibility. As long as an agent does what she wants to do in a given situation, she is morally responsible for her actions even if she does not have free will in the libertarian sense.

Compatibilism has the advantage of preserving the strongest possible view of divine providence. It is also consistent with the biblical data that speak of human actions being under God’s control (Exod. 7:3; Prov. 16:4, 9; 21:1; Dan. 4:35; etc.). Of course, it is no easy matter to explain how human beings can be responsible for actions that they could not avoid. Compatibilism also has a more difficult problem than the other views with exonerating God from being the author of evil.

None of the proposed solutions to the providence-freedom puzzle is without problems. Yet any of the “no risk” views is a viable option for evangelicals, with none of their apparent problems being insuperable obstacles from a biblical point of view.