Henry Imler May 11th, 2007

The origins of the Mormon religion are a topic of great interest. On one hand, Mormonism is an outworking of the democratization thesis in its purest form, hence, the designation as the quintessential American Religion. On the other, many Mormon beliefs are completely different from its immediate predecessors. There have been a number of works that have explained the social origin of Mormonism, but not its unique theological development. (xv) Stepping into this void, John L. Brooke’s The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 attempts to account for the development of core Mormon beliefs that substantially differentiate it from mainstream Protestantism. Among these beliefs are the celestial marriage, equality of matter and spirit, and the ultimate goal of godhood amongst believers. For Brooke, these beliefs originated from traditions of alchemy and hermeticism. Brooke locates this trajectory as originating in the traditions of the Radical Reformation. Despite the prime facie connections made by Brooke, there remain questions that significantly question his thesis.

Brooke lays out his case in three parts, the history of hermeticism, the influence of Freemasonry, ending with a discussion of how Mormonism developed these ideas. The first section, chapters 1-3, explains and traces the roots of alchemy and hermeticism throughout the ages in the Europe and into America. Brooke contends that the ideas of biblical Primitivism, millenarianism, and Calvinist asceticism are insufficient to explain the development of the fundamental concepts that Smith and his successors developed.

While on the surface the book makes a convincing argument, issues keep reappearing throughout the text. The largest issue is the lack of the use of primary sources. Brooke does quote from some primary sources, such as Doctrines and Covenants, and The Book of Mormon. However, for the interpretation of these texts and for an understanding of early Mormon theology, Brooke utilizes mainly anti-Mormon sources. The use of these sources instead of the writings and reflections of the Mormon theologians skews the data sample that Brooke uses. It is no surprise that these anti-Mormon sources give rise to the accusations of magical and occultic practices considering their polemical nature. The study of Mormonism lies on a dangerous edge surrounded on three sides by deep valleys of sources. On one side, there are the materialists that want to reduce all creative and religious sentiment to the results of economic conditions; on another lies the secretive Mormon Church whose goal is the conversion of the world; and on the third lays the anti-Mormon polemical literature. Due to the lack of objective sources, easy to use sources agree with one’s thesis. It seems that this is what Brooke has done.

Perhaps the largest issue that comes up in the book is the lack of a hard definition for hermetical and magical ideas. This loose definition of magic and hermeticism allows for an easier time making connections between these traditions and Mormonism. In the large amount of discussion of magic in the early parts of the book, Brooke accuses Smith and the like of being practitioners of “white magic.”

According to a revelation… Mormon priests of the restored Melchizedek order were to have miraculous powers analogous to white magic. They could withstand poison, make the blind see, the dumb speak, and the deaf hear; they were to “heal the sick’ and to ‘cast out devils.’” (72)

However, most Christian groups in this era would either also adhere to the quoted ideas or claim that they were part of their spiritual heritage. As such, Brooke should claim that the rest of American Christianities also were “certainly practitioners of magic” as Brooke claims Joseph Smith was. (72) It is noteworthy to point out that Bushman never makes these types of claims of Joseph Smith, nor mentions any kind of hermetical or alchemical influences, although this could be chalked up to bias on Bushman’s part.

Despite these issues, the book remains an interesting hypothesis that cannot be ignored on technical grounds. Further inquiry into the problems mentioned, most specifically the writings of the early Mormon fathers might bear out Brooke’s claims. Even though Brooke is not successful in establishing a direct link between Smith and hermeticism, nevertheless there remains the question of their correlation, even if there is no direct causation. In that regard, the book is successful.

• Philosophy
• Comments(0)