The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

SIDDHA YOGA. Siddha Yoga, which has its roots in Kashmir Shaivism, came to prominence through Bhagawan Nityananda (1896–1961) and his pupil Muktananda Paramahansa (1908–82). Muktananda’s movement now has a quarter of a million aspirants in forty-six nations. Before he died, Muktananda nominated as joint successors Swami Chidvilasananda (now known as Gurumayi) and Swami Nityananda. A subsequent rift between them led to the ousting of Nityananda in 1985.

There are also two Western-born gurus: Swami Rudrananda (1928–73) and Da John. Rudrananda, born Albert Rudolph, was initiated by Bhagawan Nityananda in 1958. He established the Shree Gurudev Rudrananda Ashram (now known as Nityananda Institute) in 1971 after a dispute with Muktananda. Da John was one of Rudrananda’s early followers and ran the Free Daist Communion.

The precepts of Siddha Yoga, as taught by Muktananda, center on devotion to the guru, who is the physical representation of Shiva. Muktananda taught that within the human body there is a female power known as Shakti. Shakti is metaphorically coiled inside like a serpent (sometimes called the kundalini). Shakti can be activated through the grace of the guru so that spiritual enlightenment is achieved. The awakening of this energy (called shaktipat) is often accompanied by physical phenomena: spontaneous laughter, weeping, dancing, and chanting. When Shakti is uncoiled, union with Shiva is achieved. Aspirants meditate daily, chant a devotional song called the “Guru-Gita,” undertake ashram work (seva), and participate in satellite-linked intensive teaching seminars. Gurumayi has established a major scholarly archive for Siddha Yoga studies.

See also SIKHISM

Bibliography. N. S. Kapany, ed., Finance and Utilization of Solar Energy.

Ergun Caner

SIKHISM. Sikhism is a world religion founded in sixteenth-century India by Guru Nanak Dev (1469–1539). Sikhism today is one of the world’s top ten religions, with 19 million of the faith’s 23 million adherents living in India. An estimated 325,000 reside in North America.

Founding of the Religion. Guru Nanak was the first of ten authoritative gurus who guided Sikhism until 1708. Caring very little about material possessions, Guru Nanak, at age thirty-six, was transformed while bathing in the River Bain. Sikhs believe that he disappeared for three days while receiving God’s enlightenment. This supernatural experience motivated him to teach throughout India, the Himalayas, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Arabia. Although he rejected traditional Islam and his parents’ Hinduism—the two predominant religions in the province of Punjab—Guru Nanak borrowed key concepts from both faiths. He focused on three main teachings concerning the way to God: hard work rather than begging or asceticism, sharing physical possessions with the needy, and remembering God at all times.

Guru Nanak convinced many followers with a practical approach to faith while minimizing religious formalities. He denounced those who went through rituals of worship but did not think about what they were doing. Before he died, he decided not to appoint his natural sons as his successors because they lacked spirituality. Instead he chose his friend Angad Dev (1504–52) to carry on the religion. The line of succession continued until the tenth and final living guru, Guru Gobind Singh (1666–1708), decided that authority should no longer be transferred to human leaders. Instead he chose to transfer ultimate authority to the Sikh scripture known as the Guru Granth Sahib. He also instituted a special baptismal rite. A new fraternity known as Khalsa, or “pure ones,” was made up of followers promising to follow five aspects of a special code known as the 5 K’s: kesh (having uncut hair under a turban or veil); kangha (a comb for grooming); kara (a metal bracelet to remind oneself of one’s servanthood to God); kacha (short underwear for modesty); and kirpan (a sword to fight for the underprivileged).

Teachings. The goal in monistic and pantheistic Sikhism is for a person to merge with the impersonal God. This God, who is the “True Name,” is one in being and exists throughout all creation, especially deep in people’s hearts. Sikhs reject the deity of Jesus because they cannot believe that God would stoop to the low level of taking a human body. The doctrine of reincarnation is taught in Sikhism, as positive and negative actions done by a person in this life (karma) are said to have an impact on the next life. People can return as either humans or animals, depending on their actions.

Sikhism emphasizes the idea that all people can experience God, thereby rejecting the Hindu notion of the caste system. Sikhism is universalistic and considers those who belong to other religions as worshipers of truth. Social and economic equality is considered a divine principle. Men and women are considered equal despite the historical suppressing of women throughout South Asia. Economic equality is demonstrated in community kitchens known as langars, as the Sikhs serve free communal meals to anyone regardless of one’s income. A true Sikh owes God absolute submission expressed in daily prayer, the inner repetition of God’s name, detachment from the world, performing acts of service and charity, and singing devotional songs (kirtan). Rituals such as religious fasting and vegetarianism, pilgrimages, yoga, and idol worship are condemned. Normal family lives are encouraged as celibacy is rejected. Sikhs are admonished to extinguish the five evils: lust, anger, greed, worldly attachment, and pride. Those who have complete devotion (bhakti) can have full realization of the truth. Sikhs generally are not evangelistic in their faith, as they usually choose to focus on personal spirituality rather than debating religion. They tithe a tenth of their income. Tobacco, drugs, and alcohol are prohibited.

Recent History. Historically the Sikhs have had a difficult time finding religious liberty in their native India. In 1947 the province of Punjab was divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. Sikh separatists have unsuccessfully attempted to create an independent state called Khalistan. The situation has been tense as well as destructive. One major tragedy took place in 1984 when the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Sikhism’s holiest shrine, was invaded by the Indian Army as ordered by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Terrible damage was inflicted on the temple site, and estimates of the dead range between 330 and 25,000. Prime Minister Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh guards on October 31, 1984. Many Sikhs throughout India lost their lives in the wake of the assassination, with at least 8,000 dying in the city of Delhi alone.

Bibliography. M. P. Fisher, Living Religions; J. B. Noss, Man’s Religions; R. Schmidt et al., Patterns of Religion; Sikh Missionary Center, Sikh Religion.

E. Johnson

SMITH, JOSEPH, III. Joseph Smith III (1832–1914) was a son of Mormon founding prophet Joseph Smith Jr. and leader of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church). The oldest male child of Joseph and Emma Smith, he was recruited by Mormons dissatisfied with the leadership of Brigham Young and by others to succeed Joseph Smith Jr. as the Prophet of the Restoration. Smith reluctantly agreed to follow in his father’s footsteps, but only after several years of theological investigation and spiritual reflection. At a conference meeting in Amboy, Illinois, he presented himself for ordination as the president of the High Priesthood of the RLDS Church on April 6, 1860—exactly thirty years after his father organized the first congregation of Mormons in New York. The RLDS Church distinguished itself from the Utah Mormons on the issues of polygamy and temple rites. Smith insisted that his father was not a polygamist or the originator of secret temple rites.

During his term as president, he established Sunday school for children and built Graceland College (now Graceland University) in Lamoni, Iowa. Joseph Smith III edited a publication titled The True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, now known as the Saints Herald. Seventeen of his alleged revelations are recorded in the RLDS version of the Doctrine and Covenants, and he finished his Memoirs only a few weeks before his death in Independence, Missouri. Descendants of the Smith family would lead the RLDS Church until 1996. On April 6, 2001, the RLDS Church officially changed its name to the Community of Christ.

Bibliography. I. S. Davis, The Story of the Church; R. D. Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet; S. Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration.

C. J. Carrigan

SMITH, JOSEPH, JR. Joseph Smith Jr. (1805–44) was the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). In his claims to be the inspired translator of the Book of Mormon and other ancient scriptures and the Prophet of the Restoration, Smith was arguably the most controversial figure in American religious history. Out of reverence for his role, faithful Mormons commonly refer to him by his first name (and almost never by his last name only).

Interpretations. So many issues pertaining to Smith’s life are contested that it will be useful to begin by summarizing four main interpretations.

True Prophet. The traditional LDS interpretation accepts Smith as a prophet through whom the Lord spoke and acted from at least the late 1820s until his death in 1844. This interpretation accepts the Book of Mormon as the word of God, Smith as the founding prophet of the restored church, the priesthood system that he established as the instrumentality of God’s power and authority on earth, and Smith’s institution of plural marriage as divinely authorized fact. A variation of this view accepts the same interpretation of Smith but regards the LDS Church as having departed from the true path by its renunciation of plural marriage a half century after his death. A number of polygamous LDS sects adhere to this variant perspective.

False Prophet. The conventional non-Mormon interpretation regards Smith as a false prophet from beginning to end, regardless of how his actions and motivations (and those of his supporters) are explained. This interpretation regards the Book of Mormon as a modern fiction and the LDS Church as an institution predicated on Smith’s false claims.

Fallen Prophet. An often overlooked interpretation maintains that Smith was a prophet of God through whom the Book of Mormon was brought to the world but that soon afterward he proved unfaithful. This was the view articulated, for example, by David Whitmer, one of the three “witnesses” to the Book of Mormon and a leader in the early LDS movement, in his booklet An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887). Whitmer argued that Smith was authorized by God only to translate the Book of Mormon and bring its message to the world; the LDS priesthood system and most of Smith’s revelations were, in Whitmer’s view, not from God and created the conditions for the institution of polygamy.

Religious Genius. Some academics, seeking to steer clear of taking a stand on Smith’s claim to speak for God, describe him as a “religious genius” or use expressions of similar import. These scholars view Smith as a revolutionary thinker and leader who was gifted with imagination, creativity, and intelligence. By his unique combination of talents, Smith reconstructed Christianity and created in effect a new world religion. Frankly, this interpretation is more or less a polite, complimentary way of saying that Smith did not really receive divine revelation. Pragmatically, there is little difference between this interpretation and the false prophet interpretation except that the religious genius model commonly assumes a noble motivation on Smith’s part.

Early Life. Joseph Smith Jr. was born December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont, to Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. (For the sake of simplicity, hereafter unqualified references to “Smith” refer to Joseph Jr.) Both parents were primitivists, or “seekers,” followers of a movement of disaffected Protestants who regarded all denominations as having fallen away from original, true Christianity. Primitivists ran a gamut of beliefs from deism and universalism (Joseph Smith Sr. as a young adult had helped start a Universalist society) to a kind of proto-Pentecostalism that looked for miraculous manifestations of varying kinds as precursors to the second coming. Both Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy reported having had dreams or visions portending judgment on Christendom and suggesting hope of salvation for their family. After several moves to various towns in Vermont and much hardship, the family moved to Palmyra in upstate New York when Joseph Smith Jr. was twelve years old. In an unpublished autobiographical account he wrote in 1832, he claimed that between the ages of twelve and fifteen he had become convinced that there was no true church on the earth—a notion that he clearly could have picked up at that age from his parents.

In the winter of 1819–20, the Smith family moved into a cabin near the border of Palmyra, in an area later renamed Manchester. According to Smith’s 1838 autobiographical account in what is now the LDS scripture Joseph Smith—History (part of the Pearl of Great Price), in the spring of 1820 Smith had a vision far more stupendous than those of his parents. He claimed that in answer to a prayer to know which church to join, God the Father and Jesus Christ had both appeared visibly to him and spoken to him. Christ, according to the account, told Smith to join none of the churches because all of them were wrong and their creeds were abominations. Smith’s experience, commonly called the First Vision, eventually came to be regarded by Mormons as the inaugural event of a new dispensation, the most important event in history since the resurrection of Christ. Ironically, no such importance was attached to the First Vision in Smith’s own day, even after the story was first published in 1842. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone had ever heard about this vision prior to the mid-1830s. In Smith’s 1832 autobiographical writing mentioned earlier, he did report a vision from his teen years, but it was a vision of “the Lord” (Jesus) alone, not of the Father and the Son. This account was never made public until it was discovered in 1965. As far as anyone knew prior to the mid-1830s, the founding event of Mormonism was Smith’s encounter with the angel and the gold plates, not a vision of Jesus Christ or of Jesus Christ and the Father.

Treasure Seeking. Whatever may or may not have happened in the spring of 1820 evidently had no immediate impact on the young Joseph Smith. A few months later that year, the family bought a property of a hundred acres, and Joseph Smith Sr. and his sons Alvin and Joseph very quickly began digging for buried treasure. There is some evidence, albeit from unfriendly sources, that Joseph Smith Sr. had also been involved in such activities in Vermont, perhaps searching for the fabled treasure of Captain Kidd. In any case, his son Joseph soon gained a special reputation in this area, particularly in 1822 after he began using a seer stone he obtained when he helped a neighbor named Willard Chase dig a well. A seer stone was a small, generally rounded stone used in divination; Smith would put it in his hat, place his face into the hat to block outside light, and report details about the treasure and its location that he claimed to see by or through the stone.

Smith was engaged in recurring efforts to locate buried treasure through the use of his seer stone during most of the years from 1822 to 1827. During most of this period, he was living in the Palmyra-Manchester area. In November 1825, Josiah Stowell hired Joseph Smith Jr. to help search for a lost Spanish silver mine near Harmony, Pennsylvania, just across the southern border of New York. The expedition was unsuccessful, but Smith remained in the area for a few months pursuing additional treasure hunts in and around nearby South Bainbridge, New York. In March 1826, Stowell’s nephew Peter Bridgeman had Smith brought before a judge there named Albert Neely, accusing him, essentially, of fraud. It is disputed whether the payment the judge required from Smith was a fine (implying some guilt) or merely court costs, but what cannot be disputed is that the incident confirms Smith’s heavy involvement in treasure seeking.

Although Smith found no silver mine in Harmony, he did find a wife, Emma Hale, in whose family’s home the treasure seekers stayed during their expedition. Since Emma’s father, Isaac, did not approve of the treasure seeker, in January 1827 Joseph Smith and Emma Hale eloped and went to live in Manchester. In August they returned to the Hale home in Harmony to collect Emma’s belongings. While there Smith reportedly confessed to Isaac Hale that he had no gift of seeing and promised to abandon his activities as a seer in exchange for Isaac’s help in starting a farm.

The Gold Plates and the Book of Mormon. The following month, Joseph and Emma Smith traveled back to Manchester, where Smith said a stone box was buried containing ancient gold plates. According to Smith’s later accounts, he had first been told about these plates in 1823 by an angel, who allowed Smith to see them but not remove them. Each September 22 from 1823 through 1826, Smith had visited the location of the plates on a hill near his home, been visited by the angel, and viewed the plates, but each time he had not been allowed to remove them. This is the same period during which Smith was most heavily involved in the use of his seer stone to search for buried treasures. It is unclear who, if anyone, knew about the gold plates prior to September 1827. What is clear is that soon after that date others believed Smith had such plates, though it would be nearly two years before he would allow anyone else to see them.

In the spring of 1828, Smith dictated to his friend and financial supporter Martin Harris what he claimed was an inspired translation of a portion of the plates, produced supposedly using “interpreters” (described as stone spectacles), also taken from the stone box. When the handwritten manuscript of 116 pages was stolen from Harris’s house, Smith was at first distraught but then issued his first “revelations”—statements of varying length in which the Lord Jesus supposedly spoke in the first person to and through Smith. These initial revelations concerning the 116 pages and other matters pertaining to the Book of Mormon (later canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 3, 5, and 10) set the precedent for Smith to be viewed not only as the instrument for the “coming forth” of the Book of Mormon but also as a prophet of God delivering new, modern revelations.

Between September 1828 and March 1829, Smith began dictating what he said was an inspired translation of a different part of the gold plates, with his wife, Emma, as the scribe. Apparently little progress was made during this period. Then, however, a schoolteacher friend of Smith named Oliver Cowdery began serving as his scribe, and from April to June 1829 they produced a completed manuscript. According to several reports by friends who observed some of the dictation sessions, Smith never looked at the gold plates when dictating his translation. Instead he looked at his seer stone inside his hat, the same method used in his treasure-seeking ventures. On March 26, 1830, the first copies of the Book of Mormon went on sale, and on April 6 Smith and a handful of friends and family members formally established their new church, at first called simply the Church of Christ.

Revelations and Doctrinal Development. Throughout the next fourteen years, Smith produced voluminous and varied revelations. These included an inspired revision of the King James Version of the Bible (commonly known as the Joseph Smith Translation) and the Book of Abraham, purportedly an inspired translation from one of the ancient Egyptian papyri that the LDS Church purchased in 1835. Smith also delivered well over a hundred modern revelations that constitute nearly the entirety of the LDS scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C). In effect Smith is regarded as the translator or revelator of nearly all the scriptures in the LDS “standard works,” including the Bible itself.

In his early years as the leader of the LDS Church, Smith taught a view of God that roughly approximated the traditional Christian doctrine. For example, in an 1830 revelation Smith affirmed that God “is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God,” and that the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal” (D&C 20:17, 28). At this point, Smith seems to have thought he was simply affirming the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. His other doctrinal views also generally corresponded to generic Protestant beliefs, though with an especially aggressive form of restorationism (the claim that his sect constituted the restoration of true Christianity).

Smith’s theology changed almost constantly over the next fourteen years. That development can be charted in two periods of roughly seven years each, first in the period when the LDS Church was based in Kirtland, Ohio (1831–37), and second in the years when it was based in Far West, Missouri, and in Nauvoo, Illinois (1838–44). The changes in the early period were more modest but provided the seeds of the later dramatic changes. In 1832 Smith produced a revelation abandoning the traditional Christian view that all people will either suffer eternal punishment in hell or enjoy eternal life in the new heaven and new earth. Instead, he taught that almost all people will live as immortal beings in one of three heavenly kingdoms, the highest of which, the celestial kingdom, is for faithful saints (D&C 76). Later he taught that those who died without a chance to accept the new gospel but who would have done so had they been given the chance would be accepted into the celestial kingdom (D&C 137). In 1833 he issued a revelation stating that “man was also in the beginning with God” and that “intelligence” is uncreated (D&C 93:29). In late 1834, Smith and some associates produced the Lectures on Faith, which drew a clear contrast between the Father as “a personage of spirit” and the Son Jesus Christ as “a personage of tabernacle,” that is, of flesh (Lectures 5.2). The Holy Spirit was described as the “Mind” shared by these “two personages.” In effect at this point Smith had changed from a roughly trinitarian theology to a ditheistic one. The Lectures on Faith were part of the Doctrine and Covenants, and thus part of the LDS Church’s “standard works,” from early 1835 until 1921. Thus by the end of the Kirtland period, Smith was teaching a decidedly nontrinitarian theology, a somewhat vague doctrine of the preexistence of man, and a form of near-universalism.

The revelations that came in the last period of Smith’s life, especially in the last two years or so, radically altered the basic worldview of the LDS religion. In 1842 he instituted baptism for the dead, which went on to become the most common ritual in Mormon temples. Instead of being saved on the basis of what they would have done given the chance, as in D&C 137, the dead who had no chance to accept the LDS gospel will have the gospel preached to them in the spirit world and have the opportunity to accept baptisms performed by Mormons for them by proxy. The Book of Abraham, published in 1843, attributed creation not to one God but to a group of Gods and reinterpreted creation as an act of organizing preexistent material: “They, the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1). Smith taught that same year that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22) and that faithful Mormons would “be gods” with “all power” (D&C 132:20). God, then, is apparently a man, with a physical body like ours, and we can become omnipotent gods like him.

Smith brought these doctrinal ideas together in his most infamous sermon, the “King Follett Discourse” (April 7, 1844). In that sermon at the funeral of Elder King Follett, Smith denied that “God was God from all eternity,” claiming instead that “God himself was once as we are now” and that he “is an exalted man,” having once “dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” Eternal life is about knowing God and learning “to be Gods yourselves . . . the same as all Gods have done before you” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345–46, 353–54). On June 16, 1844, just eleven days before his death, Smith gave a speech known as the “Sermon at the Grove.” In this sermon, he attacked the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity, claimed (falsely) that he had been teaching polytheism for fifteen years, and presented the idea that God the Father himself had a Father who was his God before him. In effect Smith proposed an endless chain of Gods, each of whom prepared the next era of spirits to become Gods. This is the doctrine that became known as eternal progression. This doctrine completed Smith’s transformation from monotheist to polytheist and took Mormonism utterly outside the theological boundaries of historic Christianity.

Polygamy. At the same time that Smith was overhauling Christian theology, he was secretly practicing polygamy, or “plural marriage,” as Mormons commonly call it. There is some dispute about when Smith initiated this practice. Some have argued that he secretly married Fannie Alger, a girl with whom he was accused of committing adultery in 1833. In any case, the historical record is quite clear that from 1841 through 1843 Smith claimed over thirty women as his plural wives. These women included at least ten whose legal husbands were still living at the time. Mormon apologists’ attempts to defend Smith on this point (he was doing it to test their faith, or only for the women’s celestial salvation, etc.) are unconvincing. Smith repeatedly denied in public that he was practicing polygamy, stating just a month before his death, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” (Joseph Smith—History 6:411). Of course, Smith had only one legal wife since bigamy and polygamy were illegal.

Meanwhile, in 1843 (at least two years after he had begun the practice), Smith had privately issued a self-justifying “revelation” claiming divine authority for taking plural wives and even instructing Emma to accept the practice and welcome the additional wives into her home (D&C 132). This revelation became the basis for the more widespread practice of polygamy by Mormons in Utah during the second half of the nineteenth century.

Joseph Smith’s Legal and Political Troubles and His Death. Smith was the object of often intense opposition for most of the fourteen years he presided over the LDS movement. Contrary to Mormon propaganda, this opposition at first had relatively little to do with Smith’s religious claims (and nothing to do with the First Vision, which was unknown by most or all Mormons through most of the 1830s and largely unknown by non-Mormons even well after his death). Several factors were involved in the Kirtland period, including accusations of adultery, charges of financial wrongdoing, acquisition of land and political power, and, in Missouri, fears that the Mormon settlers there were abolitionists whose views would foment social unrest. Allegations of banking fraud led to Smith and other Mormons fleeing Kirtland in January 1838 for Missouri. Conflicts with non-Mormons in Missouri escalated and erupted in a short but violent war; Smith was arrested and nearly executed for treason, and the governor of the state ordered Mormons to leave or face extermination.

The Mormons resettled in Illinois in a new town they called Nauvoo, on the banks of the Mississippi River. There Smith sought to establish a separate, theocratic government while also running for US president. At the same time, he was advancing ever more radical doctrinal claims and secretly practicing polygamy. On June 7, 1944, dissident Mormons published the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper denouncing Smith as a fallen prophet, condemning his polytheistic teachings, his polygamy, and his pursuit of political power. The Nauvoo city council, with Smith’s approval, had the newspaper office destroyed, and Smith declared martial law. Illinois authorities charged Smith and his brother Hyrum with inciting a riot and then with treason, and they were held for trial in the nearby Carthage Jail. On June 27, a mob stormed the jail and killed both Hyrum and Joseph Smith, although Joseph tried to defend against them with a pistol that had been smuggled into the jail. The mob had turned the disgraced prophet into someone whom Mormons could now hail as a martyr.

Joseph Smith’s Place in Mormonism. Smith is regarded as far more than the founder of the LDS Church. Mormons regard him as the Prophet of the Restoration, easily as the most important figure in history since Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is to Mormonism roughly what Muhammad is to Islam. Although Mormons do not worship Smith, they revere him in the same way that Muslims revere Muhammad. Smith is the subject of Mormon hymns (most famously “Praise to the Man”), and LDS leaders have taught that there is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:189). John Taylor, in a statement found in LDS scripture, claimed that “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it” (D&C 135:3).

Bibliography. L. F. Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir; R. D. Anderson, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon; R. I. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined; R. L. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New England Heritage: Influences of Grandfathers Solomon Mack and Asael Smith; N. G. Bringhurst, ed., Reconsidering “No Man Knows My History”: Fawn M. Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect; F. W. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith; R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling; R. N. Holzapfel and K. P. Jackson, Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer; E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed; R. N. Hullinger, Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism; D. C. Jessee et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, multiple vols.; H. M. Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816–1844; R. L. Neilson and T. L. Givens, eds., Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after 200 Years; H. W. Nibley, “No Ma’am, That’s Not History,” in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass; G. H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins; D. M. Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed.; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation; Joseph Smith Jr., Lectures on Faith; Joseph Smith Jr., Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith; Joseph Smith Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith; Joseph Smith Jr. et al., Doctrine and Covenants; D. Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols.; Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet; Vogel, “The Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests,” Dialogue; B. Waterman, ed., The Prophet Puzzle: Interpretive Essays on Joseph Smith; J. W. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress.

R. M. Bowman Jr.

SMITH, JOSEPH F. Joseph F. Smith (not to be confused with Joseph Fielding Smith) was born November 13, 1838, the first child of Hyrum and Mary Fielding Smith. As the nephew of Joseph Smith Jr., Joseph F. Smith spent his childhood around the entire Smith family. After the death of his father and uncle, Joseph F. Smith left the Nauvoo, Illinois, area and traveled with most of the Latter-day Saints to the Wasatch Valley and the Great Salt Lake basin, in Utah. Recognizing that Joseph F. Smith had amazing leadership potential, President Brigham Young suggested that Smith be ordained a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at twenty-eight years old. After serving within the Quorum of the Twelve for some time, Smith was called as a member of the First Presidency under Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow. After President Snow died, Joseph F. Smith was ordained president of the church on October 17, 1901, and served in that capacity until his death in 1918. President Joseph F. Smith was the first LDS president to visit Europe while in office, received a revelation on October 3, 1918 (now canonized as Doctrine & Covenants 138 and teaching the chance for the salvation of the dead), and saw church membership double while he was in office.

Bibliography. Joseph F. Smith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith.

T. S. Kerns

SMITH, JOSEPH FIELDING. Born July 19, 1876, to Joseph F. Smith and Julina Lambson Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, like his father, grew up in the Smith family around people involved in the LDS Church from its beginnings. Because his father was heavily involved in church work, Fielding Smith spent most of his early life with his mother and thirteen siblings, and because he was the oldest son, much of his time was devoted to helping his mother with household tasks and with the care of his siblings.

Joseph Fielding Smith would eventually marry three women (each preceded him in death): Louise Emily Shurtliff (married in 1898; died in 1908), Ethel Georgina Reynolds (married in 1908; died in 1937), and Jessie Evans (married in 1937; died in 1971).

Fielding Smith served in a number of roles within LDS Church hierarchy, beginning in 1902, when he was called to serve in the Church Historian’s Office. In 1910 he was ordained an apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve, and he was appointed church historian in 1921. He was set apart as president of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1951 and was ordained president of the church in 1970, at the age of ninety-three.

Under his leadership, local church leadership was restructured, and priesthood leaders at the local level were given more pastoral duties in their respective wards. One of his most significant accomplishments was the restructuring of the print publications of the church. Before Fielding Smith became president, the church produced five monthly publications. Under his leadership, those five publications were discontinued, and three new publications (Ensign, New Era, and Friend) were started. These three monthly publications continue to be part of the main communication network of the church.

Bibliography. P. Nibley, The Presidents of the Church, 13th ed.

T. S. Kerns

SMITH BIDAMON, EMMA. Emma Smith Bidamon (1804–79) was the wife, and later widow, of Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith Jr. The seventh of nine children born to Isaac and Elizabeth Hale, she eloped with Joseph Smith at the age of twenty-two after her father twice refused to grant Smith permission to marry his daughter.

A staunch opponent of polygamy, Emma found herself rebuked by her husband in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 54 warned that if Emma did not “abide this [polygamous] commandment,” she would be destroyed. Although she refused to reverse her position on plural marriage, Emma lived a full life. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, died within a year of the prophetic announcement.

After her husband’s death, she refused to follow Brigham Young when he led a majority of the Saints to the Salt Lake Valley. She remained in Nauvoo with her children and married non-Mormon Lewis C. Bidamon in December 1847. This union was seen by many as indicating a lack of loyalty to both her prophet husband and his calling.

In 1860 her eldest son, Joseph Smith III, became the first president of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Emma Bidamon lived the rest of her life in Nauvoo and died on April 30, 1879.

Bibliography. R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling; L. K. Newell and V. T. Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe.

W. McKeever

SMRITI. Smriti (Sanskrit, “what is remembered”) is one of the two broad, fundamental, authoritative sources of Hindu doctrine and practice (the other being the shruti). Smriti is akin to the concept of tradition in religions such as Judaism; it is often said to be a recollection of formative religious experiences that shaped ancient Hinduism. Most of what is considered smriti consists of a variety of sacred Hindu texts, though many Hindu sects include their formalized systems of thought in the category of smriti as well. Various proposals for precisely classifying smriti have been submitted by various schools of Hindu thought and are not universally agreed upon, though much is held in common. Though the smriti are highly regarded, their authority is generally seen as subordinate to (and qualified by) that of the texts that are shruti. This is because the shruti are thought to be perfect transmissions of the primordial vibrations of the universe, whereas the smriti are said to suffer from the fallibility of merely human authorship.

However, in practice most Hindus treat the smriti as being equal in authority to the shruti, and in many cases devotees base their beliefs and practices primarily on the smritis because these texts are more accessible and familiar to them. The texts of the smriti include (but are not limited to) the Dharma Sutras, the Puranas, the Mahabharata (which contains the Bhagavad Gita), and the Ramayana. Arguably the most important text among the smriti is the Laws of Manu, which sets forth statutes that regulate the conduct of Hindus at the national, family, and individual levels.

Bibliography. Swami Bhaskarananda, The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World’s Oldest Religion; M. O. Fitzgerald, Introduction to Hindu Dharma; K. Knott, Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction; V. Narayanan, Hinduism: Origins, Beliefs, Practices, Holy Texts, Sacred Places.

J. Bjornstad

SNOW, LORENZO. Lorenzo Snow (1814–1901) was the fifth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). He was the fifth child of Oliver and Rosetta Pettibone Snow and younger brother to the famous Mormon poet Eliza Roxy Snow. Snow joined the LDS Church on June 19, 1836, and almost immediately was called to serve on several missions, including one to England in which he presented Queen Victoria with a special copy of the Book of Mormon.

On February 12, 1849, at the age of thirty-four, he was ordained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. He became the fifth president of the LDS Church after the death of Wilford Woodruff in 1898. An acknowledged polygamist, Snow fathered forty-two children and was arrested for unlawful cohabitation at the age of seventy-two. He was released after serving eleven months at the Utah Territorial Penitentiary.

Snow is probably best remembered for the expression, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This couplet, which Snow claimed was received by divine revelation, succinctly proclaims the LDS teaching that God was once a human and that human beings have the capacity to become Gods.

Snow was eighty-seven when he died in Salt Lake City on October 10, 1901.

Bibliography. L. J. Arrington, ed., The Presidents of the Church.

W. McKeever

SOCINIANISM. Socinianism is a form of Unitarianism professed by the Polish Brethren and their Transylvanian counterparts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which takes its name from its most distinguished exponent, Faustus Socinus (1509–63). Leading characteristics of Socinianism include the following:

1. An utter denial that God has revealed anything incomprehensible to human beings

2. A corresponding penchant for construing Scripture in such a way that it contains nothing mysterious or counterintuitive to human beings

3. Implacable hostility to the doctrines of the Trinity, the hypostatic union of two natures in the person of Christ, original sin, predestination, justification by faith alone, and the necessity of supernatural regeneration

4. Psilanthropism—that is, the belief that Christ was a mere man, who did not exist before his conception in Mary’s womb

5. Abhorrence of the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement

6. A Pelagian denial of human beings’ moral debilitation in consequence of Adam’s fall

Socinianism exerted a vast influence on the intellectual life of Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for two principal reasons. First, the Socinian churches of Poland and Transylvania flourished in their halcyon days to an extent that no Unitarian communion has before or since that period. The Socinians, for example, were the first and only Unitarian communion ever to attain quasi-official status anywhere in Europe. As one of the three officially tolerated religions in Poland and Transylvania—alongside Roman Catholicism and conventional Protestantism—Socinianism attracted a wide following in these countries and appealed especially to intellectuals and the nobility. In the latter sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Socinians of Poland and Transylvania controlled prestigious institutions of higher education, which attracted students from across Europe, and they maintained printing presses from which issued a flood of propaganda on Socinianism’s behalf. For several decades, Socinianism appeared to constitute a formidable rival to Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism and thus commanded the attention of intellectuals throughout Europe.

Second, Socinianism possessed brilliant apologists in the persons of Faustus Socinus himself, Johannes Crellius (1590–1633), Jonas Schlichtingius (1592–1661), Samuel Przipcovius (1592–1670), Johannes Wolzogenius (ca. 1599–1661), Andreas Wissowatius (1608–78), and others. Especially influential was the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum—a collection of works by Socinus, Crellius, Schlichtingius, and Wolzogenius—and the Racovian Catechism: the definitive exposition of Socinian doctrine. It is unsurprising, then, that Socinianism proved widely influential.

After the Socinians were expelled from Poland and harsh restrictions were imposed on them in Transylvania, however, Socinianism as an organized religion virtually ceased to exist. Polish exiles in the Netherlands, especially Andreas Wissowatius, continued to exert influence through their writings for several decades after the expulsion. Nevertheless, by 1700 the avant-garde of European opinion had moved beyond Socinianism to deism. Socinian writings continued to supply intellectual ammunition to opponents of the doctrines of the Trinity, Christ’s deity, original sin, and so on, but by the dawn of the eighteenth century, Socinianism as a movement was almost entirely defunct. What follows is an overview of Socinian theology and then an assessment of Socinianism’s legacy for the present.

Doctrine of Scripture. The Socinian doctrine of Scripture consists essentially in the following four affirmations: (1) Scripture is authentic, (2) Scripture is inspired, (3) Scripture is sufficient, and (4) Scripture is perspicuous.

The first of these tenets Socinians accept in much the same sense as conventional Protestants. On the subject of Scripture’s perspicuity, however, Socinians diverge radically from orthodox Protestant belief. Socinians assert not merely that Scripture is sufficiently perspicuous that one may gain the knowledge essential to salvation by diligent study of the whole. Rather, they insist that God reveals nothing incomprehensible to the human mind, and therefore, they reject doctrines such as those of the Trinity, the incarnation, and original sin peremptorily.

Paterology. The Socinians regard the Father and only the Father as God. Unlike orthodox Protestants, who draw a conceptual distinction between the one, divine nature and the three divine persons, Socinians reject all distinctions between nature and person as spurious. Since God’s nature is numerically one, the Socinians argue, the divine essence cannot contain more than one person, for a person, they assert, is nothing other than an individual, intelligent nature.

A trinitarian can answer this criticism by noting that “person,” in the context of trinitarian theology, signifies something subtly different from an intelligent, individual nature as such. The word person signifies an intelligent, individual nature that is incommunicable, a nature that, in other words, possesses some property that really, and not merely conceptually, distinguishes it from all other persons.

The property that distinguishes the Father from the Son is his paternity. That which distinguishes the Son from the Father is his sonship; and that which distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is his procession from both of them; not even a divine person can proceed from himself. One can affirm without patently contradicting oneself, therefore, (1) that there is only one divine nature; (2) that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are identical with the same nature; and (3) that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are, nonetheless, really and inexorably distinct from one another.

How, the Socinians ask, can the Father, the Son, and the Spirit be identical with the same nature without being identical with one another? This question Scripture does not answer. Nevertheless, it is fallacious to reason that if the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father is the Son. For the Father is not God simpliciter but rather God begetting. The Son is not God simpliciter but God begotten; and from the premises “The Father is God begetting” and “The Son is God begotten” the identity of the Father and the Son does not follow. Even if one cannot demonstrate how the doctrine of the Trinity could be consistent, then, one can discredit the Socinians’ arguments that it manifestly contradicts itself.

Naturally, the Socinians avail themselves of biblical as well as logical arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. They argue, for example, that only the Father is God because the Son describes him as “the only true God” (John 17:3). But in this, they apparently fail to realize that Jesus’s statement merely identifies the Father as identical with the only divine nature. It does not deny that Jesus is also identical with this nature. Likewise, the Socinians cite Jesus’s statement, “No one is good but . . . God” as conclusive evidence that Christ is not God. Again, however, they seem not to realize that if Jesus is not God, then Jesus’s statement implies that he himself is not good—a consequence evidently out of accord with the whole tenor of Scripture. As for the rest of the Socinians’ scriptural arguments against the Trinity, they almost exclusively presuppose the rejection of the duality of Christ’s natures and the eternal generation of the Logos, on the one hand, or the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, topics I address at length in the sections on Christology and pneumatology, respectively.

Christology. The Christology of the Socinians is simple. Regarding Christ’s person, they insist that he is a mere human being, whom God, after Christ’s resurrection, endowed with divine prerogatives. As to Christ’s work, they believe that, although he does not suffer the penalty his people deserve for their sins on the cross, he accomplishes, in a diminished sense, the functions of prophet, priest, and king.

1. Christ’s person. In order to render their psilanthropism (their belief that Christ is a mere human being) credible, the Socinians must establish at least that Christ is inferior to God. To achieve this end, they rely primarily on three classes of scriptural texts. The first includes passages in which Christ directly acknowledges his human nature’s inferiority to the divine nature of God the Father. In John 14:28, for example, Jesus declares, “The Father is greater than I.” Again, in John 20:17, he asserts, “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (this and all subsequent quotations in this entry are from the NASB). The second class of texts includes statements ascribing to Christ properties incompatible with deity. For example, one reads in Psalm 121:3–4: “He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.” Yet according to Mark 4:38, “Jesus . . . was in the stern, asleep on the cushion.” According to Scripture, God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27); yet numerous persons saw Jesus. Likewise, Scripture asserts that God is immortal (1 Tim. 1:17) but also that Jesus died an agonizing death.

The third class of texts is those in which Jesus acknowledges his dependence on the Father. In Matthew 28:18, the Socinians observe, Christ does not claim that all authority belongs to him by native right; rather, he states, “All authority . . . has been given to Me.” The Socinians, then, might seem to mount a conclusive case for Christ’s inferiority to God.

On closer inspection, however, the Socinian case against Christ’s deity appears highly vulnerable to critique. For on at least eight occasions, Scripture refers to Jesus as God (cf. John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Scripture, likewise, attributes to Christ divine functions such as the creation of the universe (John 1:3, 10; Eph. 3:9 [KJV]; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10), the preservation of all creatures (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), the final judgment (Matt. 25:31–46; John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 14:10 [KJV]; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8), the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 9:2 and parallels; Luke 7:48; Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13), and the salvation of human beings (Matt. 1:21; Acts 5:31; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 1 John 4:14; cf. Isa. 43:11).

Scripture ascribes to Christ, moreover, divine attributes such as omnipresence (Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:17), omniscience (John 16:30; 21:17; Col. 2:3), existence before creation (John 1:1; 17:5; Col. 1:15–17; Heb. 1:10; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8), equality with God (John 5:18; Phil. 2:6), and even deity itself (Col. 2:9); and the scriptural authors endorse, by precept and example, the worship of Jesus with the reverence due to God alone (John 20:28; Rom. 14:10–11; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 2:10–11; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5–6). The scriptural evidence for Christ’s deity thus seems too strong for one reasonably to conclude, with the Socinians, that Christ is God only in the sense that the human judges of Psalm 82 are.

In order to reconcile with Christ’s Godhood the first two classes of texts that the Socinians introduce—namely, those in which Christ acknowledges his inferiority to the Father and those that ascribe to Christ attributes that are incompatible with deity—one need merely establish that Christ’s divine person possesses two distinct natures: one divine and the other human. Since these natures exhibit radically different, indeed incompatible, properties, Christ’s simultaneous possession of the two natures would mean that he could be, at the same time, equal to the Father as God and inferior to him as a human being, incapable of sleep as God and capable of sleep as a human being, and so on.

The Socinians consider the doctrine that Christ is one divine person who possesses a human as well as a divine nature to be incoherent. It appears to them incoherent, however, only because they acknowledge no distinction between nature and person. As noted above, in order to constitute a person, an intelligent nature must possess some property, frequently referred to as its subsistence, that renders it incommunicable—that is, incapable of incorporation into another person.

That every human being, and indeed every distinct entity, possesses such a property seems evident. For a thing’s nature and its existence do not suffice for it to exist as an independent entity. The sum total of a computer’s parts, for example, constitutes its nature. The actually existing sum of a computer’s parts, however, does not make the collection of parts a computer. In order to obtain a computer, one must bestow on the computer’s existing nature a certain organization, which constitutes its subsistence.

What precisely constitutes the subsistence of human beings, admittedly, is mysterious. If, however, human beings have souls, their subsistence cannot consist merely in their organs’ arrangement or in the surface of their skin. Human subsistence, rather, must be spiritual and therefore difficult, if not impossible, to apprehend.

That two spiritual natures can share a common subsistence is not self-evident; neither, however, is it demonstrably impossible. The doctrine that Christ united a human nature to his eternal person so that one person possesses a divine and a human nature is a mystery like the doctrine of the Trinity. One can refute arguments that the doctrine could not possibly be true, and although one cannot demonstrate that the doctrine is even conceivable, one possesses sufficient warrant for believing it because God affirms it in Scripture.

That God does affirm this doctrine in Scripture seems evident from the following three considerations. First, Paul teaches in Philippians 2:6–7 that “Christ Jesus . . . although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant.” Paul employs the word form (Greek morphē) here at least approximately in the sense of “nature” (cf. NIV: “very nature”). Otherwise, he would assert that Christ merely appeared to be human, in which case he could not have suffered “death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

In Philippians 2:6–7, then, Paul teaches that the eternal Son, who already possessed a divine nature, assumed the nature of a bondservant and, in that nature, died on the cross. The words “emptied Himself,” admittedly, might tempt one to think that Christ emptied himself of his divine nature when he assumed a human nature. However, Scripture’s numerous ascriptions to Christ of deity, divine attributes, divine functions, and so on, even during his period of humiliation on earth, preclude this possibility. Rightly understood, then, Philippians 2:6–7 directly teaches the doctrine that we have proposed as a solution to Socinian objections to Christ’s deity, the doctrine that the Son, possessing eternally and unchangeably a divine nature, assumed into his subsistence a human nature and became thenceforth one person in two natures.

Second, passages such as Acts 20:28, “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood,” and 1 Corinthians 2:8, “they . . . crucified the Lord of glory,” assert of the one Christ that, although he is God, he has blood and was crucified—which cannot be true of God but can be true of a human being. Such passages seem to suggest only slightly less directly than Philippians 2:6–7 that Christ is God and human being in one person. Third, Scripture sometimes ascribes to Jesus attributes no single nature can simultaneously possess: mutability and immutability, mortality and immortality, invisibility and visibility, and so on. If Jesus does not possess at least two natures in his one person, it seems, many of these texts must simply be false. Since Scripture clearly describes Christ as God and as human, then, it seems only reasonable for one who believes the Bible to consider Jesus one person in two natures; and one who accepts this doctrine, as we have seen, possesses an adequate answer to arguments against Christ’s deity that are grounded in his possession of attributes inconceivable in the divine nature.

This doctrine, nevertheless, does not suffice to resolve the difficulties engendered by the third class of biblical texts Socinians marshal to prove Jesus inferior to the Father. In these texts, Jesus indicates that he derives not merely his humanity but his life (John 5:26), his power to act (John 5:19, 30), and his authority (Matt. 28:18) from God the Father. One may answer the charge that this implies that Jesus is not God by a twofold response. First, these texts do not invalidate the testimony of the verses cited earlier on behalf of Jesus’s deity; and, second, the doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation explains how the Son can be fully God, and therefore equal with the Father, and yet derive his being, in some sense, from the Father.

The doctrine of Christ’s eternal generation derives its principal support from two considerations. First, a number of texts describe Jesus as “the only begotten from the Father” (John 1:14 NASB), “the only begotten God” (John 1:18 NASB), and God’s “only begotten Son” (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Second, the very names of the first two persons of the Trinity, “Father” and “Son,” presuppose some relation of origination, albeit ineffable. If the Father eternally communicates his divine nature to the Son, the Son is God and, therefore, coessential and coequal with his divine Father, notwithstanding his dependence on the Father for this communication. The doctrine of Christ’s eternal generation, then, appears adequate to answer the Socinian argument against Christ’s deity from his dependence on the Father. The Socinians, then, fail to adequately warrant their dissent from orthodox conceptions of Christ’s person and natures.

2. Christ’s work. Regarding Christ’s work, Socinians differ from conventional Protestants of their time primarily in that they abhor the notion of a substitutionary atonement. By his death on the cross, the Socinians maintain, Christ reconciled human beings to God in three senses. First, he sealed the covenant of salvation with his blood. Second, he demonstrated the sincerity of his preaching by suffering death on its account. Third and most importantly, Christ, by dying, occasioned his resurrection, which constitutes a pledge of the resurrection of all and a guarantee that God will fulfill his promises. In the Socinian view, then, Christ’s resurrection is more consequential than his death, and Christ’s death neither satisfies God’s justice nor appeases his wrath toward sinners.

The Socinians prefer this minimalistic conception of Christ’s work on the cross over the notion of penal atonement for two principal reasons. First, they believe that retributive justice, the virtue that demands condign punishment for every sin, is not a divine attribute. Second, they believe that persons can be morally obligated to perform only those acts of which they are fully capable.

The first belief renders Christ’s suffering of punishment on others’ behalf superfluous; if God need not punish every sin condignly, he can forgive sinners without receiving a divine-human sacrifice on their behalf. And the second belief implies that the very notion of a penal atonement is absurd. The doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement presupposes that human beings, on account of the infinite guilt of their sins, owe God an infinitely valuable sacrifice, which they themselves cannot provide. If obligation presupposes ability, however, human beings simply cannot owe God such a sacrifice. They must be capable of pleasing him through their own resources.

The falsehood of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement follows inexorably from these two assumptions. That these assumptions are reconcilable with Scripture, however, is by no means evident. For, first, Scripture states unmistakably that God administers retributive justice (cf., e.g., Ps. 62:12; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 2:23), and it is difficult to imagine why he would do so if retributive justice were not among his virtues. Second, Scripture implicitly contradicts the principle that obligation presupposes ability on numerous occasions. Paul, for example, asserts, “The mind set on the flesh . . . does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7–8). Likewise, Jeremiah asks, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil” (Jer. 13:23; cf. also John 6:44; 8:43; 12:39; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). Each of these authors insists strenuously that God will repay the wicked fully for their evil deeds, yet each also asserts that the wicked, of their own power, cannot turn from their wickedness to God. The principle that obligation presupposes ability, therefore, runs contrary to the plain sense of Scripture. The Socinians, accordingly, succeed in overthrowing neither the doctrine of Christ’s deity nor that of his substitutionary atonement.

Pneumatology. Socinians consider the Holy Spirit an impersonal power imparted by God to creatures, which, albeit of divine origin, is not itself divine and does not regenerate human beings. The Socinians deny the Spirit’s personality principally because Scripture declares the Spirit to be given, poured out, and so on, and human beings are said to drink of it and be baptized into it. Such predicates, the Socinians contend, are inapplicable to persons. To refute this argument, it seems, one need merely note that Scripture applies many of the same predicates to Christ and others who are unquestionably persons. Christians, for example, are “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). The Israelites wandering in the wilderness were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2) and drank of Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Job asks God, “Did you not pour me out like milk?” (Job 10:10). David states, “I am poured out like water” (Ps. 22:14), and God declares, “I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons” (Num. 8:19; cf. 18:6). The Socinian case against the Spirit’s personhood thus appears quite weak.

Their case against the Spirit’s deity, it seems, is even weaker. The Socinians grant, for example, that in a number of instances, by the expression “Holy Spirit,” Scripture means God. They explain, however, that because of the Holy Spirit’s close association with God, the scriptural authors refer to God the Father as the Holy Spirit by metonymy. Inasmuch as Scripture clearly distinguishes the Spirit from the Son and the Father on multiple occasions, however, this seems hardly likely. The Socinians, naturally, object to the doctrine of the Spirit’s deity on the grounds that he is not the Father and that he is received from the Father and the Son.

As we have seen, however, the doctrine of God’s numerical unity does not exclude a multiplicity of divine persons. If the doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation suffices to explain his dependence—even as God—on the Father, moreover, then the doctrine of the Spirit’s eternal procession should suffice to reconcile his deity with his dependence on the Father and the Son.

As to the Spirit’s work, the Socinians deny that the Spirit regenerates human beings in the sense of implanting supernatural capacities for faith and love because (1) such an act would be mysterious and perhaps incomprehensible and (2) they do not acknowledge the necessity of supernatural rebirth. Such a rebirth cannot be necessary for a human being to obtain salvation, in the Socinian view, because obligation presupposes ability. God, the Socinians hold, cannot require of human beings what they, of their own strength, cannot perform.

Soteriology. The just-mentioned principle constitutes the foundation of Socinian soteriology. The notion of original sin seems absurd to Socinians because if obligation presupposes ability, then even if moral disabilities were inherited from Adam, they would not increase human guilt. Rather, they would decrease human responsibility to the level of fallen humanity’s modified capacities. Again, Socinians see little difficulty in the notion that human beings earn their salvation by faith and works. For if obligation presupposes ability, then human beings cannot lack the ability to do whatever God requires, and they certainly cannot require the imputed righteousness of another. The Socinians sacrifice the necessity of regeneration and the rest of what Protestants typically regard as biblical soteriology, therefore, on the altar of the principle that obligation presupposes ability.

Conclusion. The Socinians’ refusal to credit any doctrine they consider unreasonable or incomprehensible thus impels them to deny key biblical doctrines about God’s being and acts. They reject the doctrines of the Trinity, the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Christ, the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of regeneration to salvation, original sin, and justification by faith alone. In so doing, the Socinians demonstrate that Procrustean, rationalistic exegesis can eviscerate biblical Christianity quite as easily as outright dismissal of Scripture’s authority.

Bibliography. R. Dán, A. Pirnát, and M. T. Akadémia, Antitrinitarianism in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century; P. Knijff and Sibbe Jan Visser, Bibliographia Sociniana: A Bibliographical Reference Tool for the Study of Dutch Socinianism and Antitrinitarianism; M. Muslow and J. Rohls, eds., Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe; J. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae: Or, the Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined in Works of John Owen; C. Sandius, Bibliotheca antitrinitariorum; F. Socinus et al., Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum; L. Szczucki, Socinianism and Its Role in the Culture of XVIth to XVIIIth Centuries; E. M. Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, 2 vols.; G. H. Williams, trans. and ed., The Polish Brethren: Documentation of Their History and Thought in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the Diaspora, 1601–1685, 2 vols.; A. Wissowatius et al., Racovian Catechism, translated by T. Rees

D. W. Jowers

SOCINUS, FAUSTUS. See SOCINIANISM

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION. Sociology is the modern, systematic, scientific study of society. The term was first used by Auguste Comte (1798–1857) in 1830, but as an academic discipline it was first developed by Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) in the late nineteenth century. It involves the application of empirical methods, such as questionnaires, survey research, and statistical analysis, to the study of society. These and other techniques are used to understand the way people act and think as members of social groups.

Other figures regarded as the founders of sociology are Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–59) and Karl Marx (1818–83), later followed by Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923), Max Weber (1864–1920), and Emile Durkheim (1858–1917). Weber was the junior colleague of Troeltsch, and Durkheim studied the work of Weber and Troetlsch in Leipzig. All three sought to counter the arguments of Marx. The sociology of religion developed through the application of sociological methods to religion as a social reality. All the key founders of sociology were preoccupied with religion and its influence. Paradoxically today, the sociology of religion is a minor field within sociology proper.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, interest in the sociology of religion revived as a direct result of the appearance of non-Christian religions and new religious movements in Western society. Leading figures in this revival were Rodney Stark (1940–), Tom Robbins (1943–2015), Jeffery Hadden (1936–2003), Eileen Barker (1938–), and Margaret Poloma (1950–). From a Christian perspective, Ronald M. Enroth (1938–) has done much work in new religious movements.

Sociological terms are often confusing to people schooled in theology because “the same” words are used by sociologists and theologians in different ways. Thus, a term like church has a definite meaning in the New Testament and Christian discourse. For Christians a church is a community of believers. The problem arises when sociologists use the word church in a completely different manner. Most sociologists use church to identify a type of religious organization that some refer to as an ideal type. Identifying ideal types was a method developed by Troeltsch and Weber to enable comparison between different religious organizations cross-culturally. It has nothing to do with theological definitions. Thus for them a church is a religious organization that is inclusive in its scope. As such a church embraces everyone living in a given geographic area. This form of religious organization can be found in all religions and therefore compared to other forms of religious organization, such as sects, that are defined by sociologists as religious groups that are exclusive in their organization.

Rodney Stark and others have questioned this usage of ideal types, proposing instead operational definitions that allow for better use of quantitative measurement using survey research and statistical analysis. Thus for Stark and people like him a church is “a conventional religious organization,” while a sect is “a deviant religious organization with traditional beliefs and practices.”

This is not the place to debate these definitions or to elaborate on sociological theories but rather an occasion to note the problem of definition and remind the reader that sociologists try to understand social organizations. Therefore, the sociology of religion is very valuable for Christians wishing to understand the world they live in, but it will not (nor does it attempt to) answer theological problems. Consequently, in sociological terms many groups that Christians consider churches or parachurch organizations are technically cults or sects, while other groups that Christians see as cults are understood sociologically as churches. Recognizing this difference in usage is the key to any Christian appreciation of sociology.

Bibliography. E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life; R. M. Enroth, Guide to Cults and New Religions; M. Hill, A Sociology of Religion; D. S. Swenson, Society, Spirituality and the Sacred; M. Weber, The Sociology of Religion.

I. Hexham

SOKA GAKKAI. Although Zen Buddhism has received the greater publicity, Soka Gakkai (Japanese, “value creation society”) has been the most aggressive Buddhist movement in the Western world. A Buddhist lay movement with a worldwide following of more than seven million people, it was once affiliated with the sect called Nichiren Shoshu and still promotes Nichiren beliefs and practices.

Nichiren Daishonin (AD 1222–82) advocated a return to the teaching of the Buddha as recorded in the Lotus Sutra. Preaching that any person could achieve buddhahood by chanting this sutra’s title, he inscribed the daimoku, an invocation of the sutra’s title (nam-myoho-renge-kyo), on sheets of rice paper (gohonzon), which served as objects of worship. Ever since, his followers have chanted the daimoku in hopes of achieving personal success, world peace (kosen-rufu), and spiritual advancement.

Soka Gakkai originated when Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), advocating educational reform on the basis of values rather than conformism, resorted to Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism as a basis for his proposals. He died in prison for not recognizing the emperor as divine, but the movement was resurrected and flourished under Josei Toda (1900–1958).

Daisaku Ikeda (b. 1928) succeeded Toda as president of Soka Gakkai. He has attempted to gain worldwide respect by encouraging members to moderate their proselytizing techniques and by appearing frequently alongside celebrities promoting world peace. Even though Ikeda maintained the subordination of the Soka Gakkai to Nichiren Shoshu for many years, in 1991 the Nichiren priesthood officially expelled the group.

Soka Gakkai attracts members by promising a happy life, including material success. In the past, new members repudiated all other religions and destroyed all religious objects in their homes (e.g., crucifixes or images of kami, gods or forces of nature worshiped in the Shinto religion) before receiving their own gohonzon (material objects of devotion), but this position has been relaxed. Soka Gakkai presents itself to the external world by promoting the fine arts and releasing a continuous stream of messages calling for nuclear disarmament.

Bibliography. K. Dobbelaere, Sōka Gaikkai: From Lay Movement to Religion; K. Murata, Japan’s New Buddhism: An Objective Account of Sōka Gakkai; D. A. Snow, Shakubuku: A Study of the Nichiren Shoshu Movement in America, 1960–75.

W. Corduan

SOUL SLEEP. Soul sleep is an unconscious state that some Christians believe is the condition of a human soul between the death of the body and the resurrection. Those who hold this notion literally interpret the Old and New Testament passages that refer to death as “sleep” (Ps. 13:3; John 11:11–14; Acts 13:36; 1 Cor. 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; Eph. 5:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–15; 5:10), concluding from them that the soul is unconscious during this intermediate period prior to the resurrection. In the sixteenth century, this view was apparently held by many in the Anabaptist and Socinian traditions (Erickson, 1176). Today soul sleep is a minority position in Christianity held primarily by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christadelphians. In fact, Seventh-day Adventists list soul sleep among their “fundamental beliefs” (Erickson, 1176). In the Seventh-day Adventist tradition, the doctrine of soul sleep is closely associated with an annihilationist view of hell and eternal punishment. In this view, the righteous arise at the resurrection, and those who are not in Christ are annihilated as punishment. Those who are not in Christ never suffer a conscious awareness of their eternal state because they sleep after the death of the physical body.

The primary texts used in favor of a soul sleep position are 1 Thessalonians 4:13–14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20, 51. In the former passage, Paul comforts believers by saying that God “will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.” First Corinthians 15:20 states, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” The argument for soul sleep is built further on passages in which those who have died do not seem to have a conscious existence (Pss. 6:5; 115:17; Eccles. 9:10; Isa. 38:19; Grudem, 819). Another text that is occasionally cited in support of soul sleep is Acts 2:34, which states, “For David did not ascend to heaven.”

A variety of approaches have been used to refute this belief. First, the Bible never explicitly refers to the soul when it says that a person has fallen asleep. It is usually clear in these passages that “sleep” is a metaphor used to demonstrate that death is temporary in the same manner that sleep is temporary (Grudem, 819). It is always the physical body that is in mind. For example, in the previously quoted passage of 1 Corinthians 15:20, the phrase “fallen asleep” is used directly in the context of death, as Christ has been raised from the dead. In John 11:11, Jesus says, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” It is soon made clear that Lazarus has died and that Jesus is going to raise him from the dead. Second, a literal soul sleep would be difficult to reconcile with many other passages that indicate that the souls of believers are in God’s presence and fellowship immediately after death (Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 20:13).

Bibliography. B. Edgar, “Biblical Anthropology and the Intermediate State,” Evangelical Quarterly; M. Erickson, Christian Theology; W. Grudem, Systematic Theology.

T. S. Price

SPEAKING IN TONGUES. Formally known as glossolalia, “speaking in tongues” typically refers to speaking in a language one has not naturally learned. It is listed as one of the gifts or manifestations of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28–30. Speaking in tongues and its companion practice of “interpretation” are mentioned in the New Testament only in Acts 2, 10, 19, 1 Corinthians 12–14, and Mark 16 (in a passage of disputed authenticity). The apostle Paul applied the prediction of Isaiah 28:11–12 to the glossolalic worship of the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 14:21).

In the biblical texts, this phenomenon was expressed in two forms. The Acts 2 account is an instance of xenoglossy (or xenolalia), where the languages were human dialects not known to the speaker but understood by some of the hearers. The accounts in 1 Corinthians 12–14 show the second form of glossolalia, where the utterance is not intelligible to anyone (14:2) and requires a spiritual gift to be interpreted (14:13), though it is recognized as an expression of prayer or thanksgiving (14:14–16).

Christians today generally take one of three positions on speaking in tongues. (1) Glossolalia was a supernatural sign given to validate the apostolic ministries and is not authentically practiced today because the sign-gifts have ceased. This perspective is known as the cessationist view. (2) Glossolalia is a valid supernatural gift for this generation but should be neither actively forbidden nor actively encouraged. This is the position of the Foursquare Gospel Church. (3) Glossolalia is a supernatural gift that should be sought and encouraged as a gift of the Holy Spirit. This view typifies charismatic and Pentecostal churches. Pentecostal views, represented by denominations such as the Assemblies of God or the Church of God in Christ, generally fall within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity and are usually deemed nonheretical (except by certain strict fundamentalists).

Bibliography. F. D. Macchia, “Glossolalia,” in Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, edited by S. M. Burgess; R. P. Spittler, “Glossolalia,” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by S. M. Burgess and E. M. van der Maas, rev. ed.

E. Pement

SPIRITUALITY, CHRISTIAN. Jerome (347–420) was apparently the first to use the Latin spiritualitas for a quality of life imparted by the Holy Spirit (Marmion, 10), but by the twelfth century, spiritualitas had acquired the more expansive referent “spiritual exercises,” a process of institutionalization culminating in the work of Ignatius Loyola (1491/1495–1556) and the Jesuits. The English equivalent spirituality still lacks adequate definition but typically denotes patterns of practices intended to foster the experience of supramundane realities in the present.

Among Christians spirituality has a venerable history from at least the second century onward. In his Protreptikos, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) urged believers to cultivate a yearning for truth and for their heavenly homeland and to be satisfied by the Scriptures, which are “inspired of God” and thus able to nourish the “spiritual” in humanity. The so-called desert fathers of the fourth century developed spiritual disciplines to an art form, utilizing ascetic rigor and religious exercises to die to earthly existence and thereby to experience identification with Christ. This tradition—though without the austerities of the desert fathers—may be traced through the church fathers (e.g., Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom) to medieval writers (e.g., Meister Eckhart [1260–1328], Thomas á Kempis [ca. 1380–1471]) to later Catholic mystics (e.g., St. John of the Cross [1542–91], Teresa of Ávila [1515–82]) to the Puritans to the German pietists (e.g., Philipp Spener [1635–1705]) to Holiness movements associated with John Wesley (1703–91) to the Keswick Convention to Pentecostalism. Contemporary Christian spirituality is expressed in such writers as Richard Foster (Celebration of Discipline, 1978), Oswald Chambers (My Utmost for His Highest, 1935), Henri Nouwen (Reaching Out, 1975), and Thomas Merton (The Seven Storey Mountain, 1948).

The work of Thomas Merton highlights the increasingly broad meaning of “spirituality” today. A Trappist monk, Merton nonetheless borrowed liberally from Gandhi and Zen Buddhist sources and became more and more detached from orthodox biblical truth-claims. Likewise, modern spiritualities, like numerous ancient heresies—for example, gnosticism and Manichaeism, which incorporated Greek mysticism into Christian theology—are highly eclectic and syncretistic. Their appeal lies in humankind’s innate spiritual nature, in human awareness of the sacred (cf. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1923), in the perceived contrast between Western materialism and Eastern quietude, and in the inclusivism implied by generic spirituality.

As noted, contemporary spirituality has been significantly influenced by Eastern religions and more recently by other non-Christian traditions, such as Islamic Sufism, Jewish Kabbalism, and neo-gnosticism.

It should be noted that Eastern spirituality is largely negative and ascetic, while Western adaptations tend to be positive and optimistic—the former seeking liberation through extinction of the self, the latter through realization of the self, often under the influence of humanistic psychology. Matthew Fox (an ex-Catholic Episcopal priest) has written, for example, that the essence of spirituality is to replace human identity defined by sin and redemption with identity defined by wholeness, goodness, and creative energy—“original blessing” rather than “original sin.” The path to this new identity involves exercises designed to intensify awareness of one’s true self and tap into the potential of that self for future growth.

Bibliography. P. N. Brooks, ed., Christian Spirituality; O. Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest; E. Cousins, ed., World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest; R. Foster, Celebration of Discipline; M. Fox, Original Blessing; D. Marmion, A Spirituality of Everyday Faith: A Theological Investigation of the Notion of Spirituality in Karl Rahner; T. Merton, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton; Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain: An Autobiography of Faith; H. J. M. Nouwen, Reaching Out: Three Movements of the Spiritual Life; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy.

C. R. Wells

STANDARD WORKS. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) recognizes four collections of scripture as its “standard works”: the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (with notes that include quotations from the Joseph Smith Translation), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Mormon and two of the books contained in the Pearl of Great Price (the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham) were produced by Joseph Smith as translations of ancient scriptures. The other books in the Pearl of Great Price and all of the Doctrine and Covenants except for five sections and the two Official Declarations were produced by Joseph Smith as modern revelations.

The term standard works in LDS usage is a technical term denoting the above four collections of scripture. The closest comparable term in traditional Christian theology is canon, with the important difference being that in LDS doctrine the standard works remain always theoretically open to new additions. Still, other than Official Declaration 2, no new scripture has been added to the standard works in nearly a century. About 99 percent of LDS scripture other than the Bible was produced in the first fifteen years of LDS history. With the proviso that the standard works (especially the Doctrine and Covenants) are open to additions, LDS theologians can describe the standard works as “canonized scripture” (e.g., Top).

For most of the first fifty years or so of LDS history, the standard works consisted of the Bible, the Book of Mormon (published in 1830, the year the church was founded), and the Doctrine and Covenants (first published with that title in 1835 as an expansion of a collection originally produced in 1831). In sermons in 1867 and 1871, George A. Smith listed these three scriptures specifically when referring to “the standard works of the Church” (JD 11:364, 17:161). In 1880 the LDS Church officially adopted the Pearl of Great Price as scripture, bringing the number of the standard works to four. The shape and general contents of the standard works have remained about the same since that time with the major exception of the removal of Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine and Covenants in 1921.

In addition to viewing these “four books as scripture,” the LDS Church teaches that “the inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture. . . . Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders” (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 45, 48). Brigham Young regarded his own sermons, at least after he had proofread them, to be Scripture as much as the Bible (JD 13:95, 264). In a broad sense, Mormons view all inspired speech as “scripture,” though only scripture that has been canonized by the formal acceptance of the LDS Church is included in the standard works. “Any message, whether written or spoken, that comes from God to man by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture. If it is written and accepted by the Church, it becomes part of the scriptures or standard works and ever thereafter may be read and studied with profit” (McConkie, 682).

Although the standard works may be viewed as functioning in a normative role in LDS doctrine (e.g., J. F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203–4), such an understanding must be qualified by the LDS emphasis on the essential role of the “living prophet,” the current president of the LDS Church. Mormons view the teaching of the living prophet as more important and normative than the teaching of past prophets in the standard works because the former authoritatively interprets the latter. According to a story told by Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Smith once asked Brigham Young to comment on the claim someone had made that the Saints should confine their doctrine to what is found in the written word of God in the standard works. Young replied that although the standard works were “the written word of God to us . . . , when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” Joseph Smith commented, according to Woodruff’s account, “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth” (Wilford Woodruff, in Conference Report, October 1897, 22–23). Woodruff argued, one could read the standard works in their entirety and any other written revelations “and they would scarcely be sufficient to guide us twenty-four hours. . . . We are to be guided by the living oracles” (JD 9:324).

The classic statement of the LDS view of the standard works and the living prophet is Ezra Taft Benson’s 1980 lecture at Brigham Young University, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” Benson’s fourteen fundamentals included the following points: “Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works. . . . Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. . . . Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. . . . Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture. . . . Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.” The lecture was published the following year in the LDS Church’s official magazine Liahona and has been cited repeatedly in more recent conference addresses as accurately expressing the church’s stance. In the October 2010 general conference, two speakers (Claudio Costa and Kevin Duncan) gave addresses in which they quoted all fourteen of Benson’s points. Thus, the LDS Church definitely maintains that the teachings of its current prophet are “more vital” and “more important” than the teachings of the written scriptures in its expanded canon of the standard works.

Bibliography. E. T. Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” Liahona; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Principles; C. Costa, “Obedience to the Prophets”; K. Duncan, “Our Very Survival”; B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine; G. A. Smith, “Raising Flax and Wool [. . .],” in JD 11; J. F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation; B. L. Top, “Standard Works,” in LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference, by R. L. Millet et al.; D. Vogel, The Word of God; C. J. Williams, “Standard Works,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by D. H. Ludlow, 4 vols; Brigham Young, “Texts for Preaching Upon at Conference [. . .],” in JD 13.

R. M. Bowman Jr.

STIGMATA. Stigmata (Greek, “marks”) is a term sometimes used to refer to a variety of bloody marks suggestive of Christ’s crucifixion wounds that have allegedly been seen on the body of an individual. Stigmata are most common on the feet and/or in the palms. On rare occasions, however, stigmata appear as wheals of scourging on the back (John 19:1), lacerations on the head (as if inflicted by a crown of thorns [John 19:2]), or a bloody gash in the side (mirroring the soldier’s javelin that was thrust into Christ [John 19:34]). Some Christians, on the basis of Paul’s statement in Galatians 6:17, believe he was afflicted by stigmata.

More than three hundred stigmata cases have been recorded over the centuries. The first one (ca. 1224) involved St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226), who showed wounds in his hands, feet, and side. Contemporary stigmatics include the renowned Padre Pio (1887–1968), who was canonized in 2002 by Pope John Paul II; Cloretta Robinson, a ten-year-old African American girl in the US (ca. 1972); and forty-three-year-old Episcopalian Heather Woods (1992).

Numerous stigmata studies and investigations since 1894 have yielded important information. First, non-Catholic stigmata cases are rare (nonexistent before 1972). Second, all stigmatics are intensely religious. Most of them, in fact, have come from religious orders (usually Dominican or Franciscan). Third, many stigmatics, in years prior to their stigmata, experienced physical or psychological trauma, either accidental or deliberate. Fourth, some stigmatics have a history of self-inflicted physical punishment as either a means of self-control or an act of spiritual devotion (e.g., self-flagellation). Fifth, a majority of stigmatics are obsessed with Christ’s crucifixion to the point of surrounding themselves with crucifixes. Sixth, visions, ecstatic trances, and mental disturbances are common to stigmatics. Seventh, more women than men are afflicted (a 7:1 ratio). Eighth, a stigmatic’s marks usually mirror the wounds (i.e., shape and location) they have seen in crucifixion pictures or on crucifixes. Ninth, the wounds of stigmatics vary greatly in size, shape, and location. Finally, most stigmatics have come from Italy, followed by France, Spain, Portugal, and other predominantly Roman Catholic or Latin American countries. Only recently (post-1908) has the phenomenon spread to other countries (e.g., UK, Australia, and the US).

Although many stigmata cases have been exposed as “pious frauds” (i.e., hoaxes motivated by misguided religious zeal), some remain a mystery. Several explanations exist. None of them can be proven. They are as follows: (1) a miracle associated with a holy person; (2) a skin disorder called dermographia (linked to persons with severe dissociative disorders), which can cause skin to grow so sensitive that the slightest touch can cause welts to appear; (3) a condition called psychogenic purpura, which is initiated by extreme stress and causes blood to leak from the skin’s capillaries; and (4) self-hypnosis, by which stigmatics can induce blood to swell from specific areas.