Reform Mormonism Gospel Doctrine

REFORM MORMON TEMPLE EVENT: February 19, 2012 in Virginia

2011-11-16T13:26:00.000-08:00

A REFORM MORMON TEMPLE EVENT is scheduled for Sunday February 19, 2012, in Smithfield Virginia (just 30 minutes from historic Jamestowns and Colonial Williamsburg).

If you would like to participate, and receive the REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT and/or SEALINGS (including same-sex sealings), please contact reformmormons@aol.com for more information, including an overview on our Temple Events and a study guide.

All Reform Mormons are welcomed!

For more information on the Reform Mormon Endowment (including a study guide) write:
reformmormons@aol.com

Worlds Without End

2011-04-10T11:42:00.000-07:00

The world’s major religions all came into existence when human understanding of the natural world was sorely limited. In the pre-scientific ancient world mythology, superstition, emotionalism and baseless speculation were the rule, not the exception, in formulating theories regarding the nature of the universe.

The earth was seen as a flat table top. The sky was seen as a great domed ceiling, supported by high mountain ranges (called “The Pillars of Heaven”) that stood at the edges of the earth. In the sky—thought to be, quite literally a dome or vaulted ceiling--there were gates through which rain fell from a great sea above know as “the firmament above the earth.” Beneath the flat earth was another great body of water (“the firmament beneath”) which feed the earths rivers, streams, seas and oceans. It was assumed that the sun, moon and stars quite literally “rose” in the east, traveled across the sky above the earth, and then “set” in the West.

From the subjective view of mankind at that time, the earth itself was assumed to be the center of existence.

This was the view of most ancient cultures, including the Israelite culture that gave the Bible to the world. Indeed, the above view of natural world—now called “The Flat Earth Theory”—is found throughout the Bible, and was accepted universally by the world’s great monotheistic religions until just five hundred years ago.

Scientists such as Galileo were considered heretics for suggesting that the earth moved around the sun, and was not the center of the universe. Christopher Columbus was one of the first European explorers to operate on the then-startling and “unproved theory” that the earth was round. When the first English ships sail to Virginia in 1607, navigating by the stars was still just as immersed in superstition and mysticism as it was in any sort of objective science or technology.

Ignorant of basic facts regarding the shape of the earth and its relationship to the sun, moon and stars, it is understandable that religions with ancient origins would have come up with complete erroneous ideas regarding the universe. Even many enlightened Christians, Jews and Muslims who embrace what modern science has revealed regarding the galaxies, may still, on an emotional level, cling to the ancient idea that the earth and life on it are, in some sense, the very center of the cosmos as far as Deity is concerned.

Mormonism came into existence at the beginning of the modern scientific age. While dictating “The Book of Mormon” Joseph Smith included the following: “…surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.” (Helaman 12:15) While this was common knowledge in 1829, the Bible’s ancient authors (and Christian theologians until just a few centuries previously) believed just the opposite.

“The Book of Mormon” also contains references to planets. (One example is found in Alma 30:44.) While the world “planet” was coined anciently by the Greeks, it was used to refer to any heavenly body; the Greeks considered the sun and stars to be planets.

In June 1830 when Joseph began dictating new versions of Genesis’s first two chapters, he began incorporating into his new scriptures the evolving 19th century scientific understanding of planets and planetary systems. “The Book of Moses” refers to there being “worlds without number” beyond earth and our solar systems. (See Moses 1:33, in “The Pearl of Great Price.”)

Joseph also declared that the first chapters of Genesis contained “only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,” explaining that previously “many worlds that have passed away…. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man.” (Moses 1:33)

So it was that in the first months of its inception, Mormonism put forth a view of endless planets and planetary systems being organized and passing away. The organization of new galaxies was a continuing, eternal process. The earth was not the center of the universe, nor did it come into existence at some imagined “beginning” of all existence. Galaxies had formed and passed away eons before our solar system formed.

(Above: The room in which Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon dictated a vision of eternity that involved the existence of other worlds with inhabitants.)

On February 16, 1832, when dictating a vision of eternity, Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon referred to other “worlds” not as empty, lifeless places but as planets filled with intelligent life—“inhabitants” who “are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (See Doctrine & Covenants 76: 24)

Less than two years after Mormonism’s emergence as a religious movement, it was teaching a then-radical theological concept—one at odds with traditional monotheism: intelligent life as found earth was not a unique phenomenon

On December 27 and 28, 1832, and on January 3,1833, Joseph Smith dictated another revelation (Doctrine & Covenants 88) in which he laid out his evolving view of the universe—a revelation he felt was so important that he described it as a “olive leaf’ … plucked from the Tree of Paradise.”

The revelation begins by celebrating the powers and forces that govern the earth, the moon, sun, stars, and celestial bodies beyond.

A complex but orderly universe is envisioned in which each thing that exists is governed by a system of laws tied to its nature. Everything which exists does so with boundaries and limits—within the “certain bounds and conditions” determined by these laws. (See Doctrine & Covenants 88:38

Joseph declared: “Verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same,” Joseph taught. (Doctrine & Covenants 88:34)

Joseph did not use the Biblically-inspired concepts of being “preserved, perfected and sanctified” in the way Christian ministers of his time did. Other ministers used these concepts to refer to the process by which an individual was forgiven for his sins, saved from damnation in hell, grew spiritually and finally entered heaven. Rather than “going to heaven,” Joseph was more concerned with things “fulfilling the measure of their creation”—meaning the process by which something can “be all that its capable of being,” or progressing to the maximum extent of its nature.

Joseph applied the concepts “preserved, perfected and sanctified” to all things that existed within nature—including planets and planetary systems. He taught that the earth itself was governed by a law, and because it “transgresseth not the law…it shall be sanctified; yea, not withstanding it shall die…” (Doctrine & Covenants 88: 25-26)
Joseph symbolically called each system of law governing something “a kingdom”—co-opting another popular Biblically-inspired Christian phraseology of his day.

Joseph’s revelation (Doctrine & Covenants 88) not only envisioned existence as orderly but as dense—with no sustainable complete vacuums at any level. Joseph declared “And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.” (Doctrine and Covenant 88:37)

The endless planetary systems existed within the boundaries of laws “by which they move in their times and seasons; and their courses are fixed…and they give light unto each other in their times and seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years…” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:42-44)

In 1835, in “The Book of Abraham,” Joseph expounded further on his vision of the endless planetary systems found throughout the universe. Inspired by contemporary theories based on those first advanced by Isaac Newton, Joseph taught that time could be measured differently from one planetary system to another, based on that planetary system’s location and other things such as the gravitational pull of neighboring planets, stars and other celestial bodies and phenomenon.

By the late-1830’s a distinct Mormon cosmology had emerged that was at odds not only with the views of ancient religions but also with the view of the Enlightened Christianity (Christianity that rejected Biblical fundamentalism, and embraced science and reason.) Mormon Cosmology was radically pluralistic—going so far as to embrace an endless number of planetary systems (many of them filled with intelligent life) but also an endless number of Gods—each existing within the boundaries set by the laws governing time and space.

A new phrase entered into Mormon religious dialogue: “Worlds without end.”

The phrase “world without end” had been used for centuries in Christian liturgy—both Catholic and Protestant—to convey the idea that the earth would endure throughout eternity. The phrase “without end” had reference to time.

Joseph Smith was familiar with phrase since it was used by all the Protestant churches he had dealings when he was in his late teens and early twenty. At age 17, Joseph Smith had been very involved in the Methodist congregation in Palymra, and had applied for membership in the Harmony, Pennsylvania Methodist congregation in 1825. In their worship services, Methodists ended their singing of the Doxology with the phrase, “World without end, Amen, Amen.”

Joseph took this traditional Christian phrase, added one letter to it and changed its context altogether. The singular “world” became the plural “worlds.” The new Mormon phrase “worlds without end” did not refer to time but to the number of planets found throughout the reaches of space.

Mormonism’s expansive, pluralistic view of the cosmos was captured by the mid-19th century Mormon writer, W.W. Phelps, in his classic Mormon hymn, “If You Could Hie to Kolob.” Below are Phelps' lyrics, inspired by the teachings of Joseph Smith:

“If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward with that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever through all eternity,
Find out the generation where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains where nothing has a place.”

The works of God continue, and worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; there is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.
There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.

There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.
There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.”

(Note: In a vision of the universe laid out in “The Book of Abraham,” the star closest to the throne of Abraham’s God is called Kolob.)

Below is a performance of the hymn by the (LDS)Mormon Tabernacle Choir:

And here is a music video of a contemporary pop version of the hymn...

ORGANIZED, NOT CREATED

2011-03-16T11:31:00.000-07:00

It is difficult for many people to conceive of a religion that does not embrace Creationism—that is: the doctrine that our universe was created.

The central premise of all monotheistic faiths is that, first and foremost,God is the Creator of all that exists; that God spoke and by the power of His word, everything, from nothingness, was called into being.

The Mormon Theological Paradigm, as constructed by Joseph Smith, rejects Creationism outright.

The physical elements themselves are eternal. Existence itself is primary—not God. This is the basis of Classical Mormon Theology and Philosophy. This is what sets Mormonism apart from all other religions. This is also what makes Mormon thought more compatible with the ever unfolding understanding of the universe given to us by modern science.

(Above: Frederick Hart's sculpture, "Ex Nihlio")

Mormon theology rejects the Orthodox Christian doctrine of “creatio ex nihilo”—the Latin phrase meaning “creation out of nothing.”

In the funeral sermon for Elder King Folliet, Joseph Smith—The First Mormon—asked:

“Now I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? ….they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool…
“You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, ‘Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?’ And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew word] ‘baurau” which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.5 Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.”

Mormon theology begins with the idea of “creatio ex materia”—meaning (in Latin) creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter.
The Biblical creation story as found in Genesis, is something to which Joseph returned time and time again throughout the course of his career. He rewrote the opening chapters of Genesis several times.

In 1830, within months of publishing “The Book of Mormon,” he began dictating a new version of the opening chapters of Genesis—narrated in the voice of the character of Moses, and later published “The Book of Moses.”

Five years later, in 1835, Joseph dictated yet another version of the opening chapters of Genesis—this time narrated in the voice of the Biblical patriarch, Abraham, whom Joseph envisioned as an ancient priest and astronomer influenced by the culture, polytheistic religion and knowledge of the ancient Egyptians. This creation account was later published under the title “The Book of Abraham,” and it established Mormonism break not only with orthodox Christianity, but with monotheistic religion itself.

(Above: a depiction of an ancient Egyptian astronomer.)

By the time he began working on “The Book of Abraham,” Joseph Smith had furthered his education somewhat, having studied at the School of the Prophets—a seminary and school for adults established by the Mormon community at Kirtland, Ohio.

Knowledge of Newton’s theories on gravity and physics were becoming more accessible to Americans during those years; also religious doctrines which had gone unchallenged for thousands of years were being called into question by the emergence of modern scientific theories regarding the origin and makeup of the natural world. It is evident that these things also greatly influenced Joseph’s personal religious views as laid out in “The Book of Abraham.”

(Above: Interior of the School of the Prophets in Kirtland,Ohio)

While the tendency among the majority orthodox Christian clergy was to resist emerging scientific theories, Mormon leaders attempted to incorporate contemporary scientific theories with Biblical narratives. The Mormons believed that “all truth [defined as ‘the knowledge of things as they are’] can be circumscribed into one great whole.” Their approach was to accept all truth regardless of where it was found—be it in religion, science or secular philosophy. As a result of this, Mormon theology evolved very quickly and changed greatly during the 1830’s. The Mormon theology that emerged by the end of the decade was not a new school of Christian theology, but a new and distinct religion—a completely new religious paradigm.

In “The Book of Abraham” the word “created” is thrown out altogether—replaced by the word “organized.” Thus the heavens and the earth are not “created” as they are in Genesis, chapter one, verse one. Instead the heavens and the earth are “organized” from the pre-existing, uncreated, eternal elements.

Stars, moons, planets and all things on them—living and non-living—are organized out of pre-existing matter/elements. In time, these things may die or decay, but the elements/matter from which they are organized remains, merely changing forms.

As a result of this were a Reform Mormon and a Christian to have a discussion on the origin of the universe, the conversation might go something like this:

CHRISTIAN: Do you believe that God created the universe?

REFORM MORMON: No.

CHRISTIAN: Who do you think created it then?

REFORM MORMON: No one created it. The elements from which all things are organized are eternal; they have no beginning or end.

CHRISTIAN: But everything has a beginning.

REFORM MORMON: Where do you believe God came from?

CHRISTIAN: God has always existed.

REFORM MORMON: So you believe that God has no beginning?

CHRISTIAN: That’s right. God has no beginning.

REFORM MORMON: But that contradicts your other belief—that ‘everything has a beginning.’

CHRISTIAN: That doesn’t apply to God.

REFORM MORMON: If it doesn’t apply to God, why shouldn’t it apply to the universe in general?

CHRISTIAN: I don’t know. It just doesn’t. It’s a mystery.

REFORM MORMON: But you’re accepting as true two ideas that are mutually exclusive. On the one hand you’re saying that everything which exists has a beginning, but on the other hand you’re saying that God, who also exists, has no beginning.

The Mormon doctrine on the uncreated, eternal nature of the elements, and its doctrine of “Organization” rather than “Creationism” are in harmony with First Law of Thermodynamics as found in physics:

“In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant – energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it….The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the absolute physical laws of the universe. Everything in the entire universe is affected by this law, as much as time or gravity… A burning log in the fireplace seems to violate the principles of conservation of matter/energy. Burning the log appears to create energy and destroy matter. In reality, the energy and matter are only changing place and forms; they are not being created or destroyed. The wood in the log has chemical potential energy, which is released when it is burned. This released energy appears in the form of heat and light. The matter of the log is changed into smoke particles, ash, and soot. The log’s total energy and mass before burning are the same as the mass and energy of the soot, ash, smoke, heat and light afterwards.”

—(www.allaboutscience.org/first-law-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm)

In conclusion, the first principles of the Mormon Paradigm can be summed up in this way:

The concept of “eternity” is most accurately symbolized by a circle or a ring. A circle and ring have no beginning and no end. Something which is eternal has no beginning and no end.

The elements are eternal. They are uncreated—without beginning or end.

All things that exist are composed of these uncreated, eternal elements; therefore existence is also eternal. It has no beginning or end. Existence itself is primary.

The universe—galaxies, stars, moons, planets and all things in them—were organized from the eternal uncreated elements.

Things in the universe may die, decay or become disorganized, but the elements from which they are organized, remain. They are eternal, without beginning or end.

Our next lesson: “Worlds Without End.”

The Elements

2010-06-11T10:49:00.000-07:00

Mormon theology and philosophy is founded upon a particular concept of what it means for something to be eternal.

Joseph Smith—the First Mormon—taught that if something had a beginning, then it could have an end; if something was created from nothing, then it could potentially be annihilated—it could cease to exist.

Joseph used a ring—a circle—to illustrate his understanding of what makes a thing eternal. Like a circle, something which is eternal must be without beginning or end; it must simply exist; it must be self-existent, depending on no one or no thing for its existence.

Traditionally the religions of the world have taught that only God (whether envisioned as a personal being or an impersonal force) is without beginning or end. In this way, the religions of the world envision God as “the First Cause” of existence itself; God is that before which nothing existed, and without which nothing could exist. In short religions almost universally teach that the existence of all things depends upon the existence of God.

Joseph Smith broke with all known religions on this idea. While he did envision God as being eternal—without beginning or end—he taught that other things were eternal in the very same way.

Joseph Smith lived at the dawn of the modern scientific age. In the same decades in which Joseph brought forth his new theology, Charles Darwin was studying the various species of animal life, and developing the Theory of Evolution. Others were exploring the material world and nature of the elements from which all things are composed. The emerging scientific theories would challenge many of the faith-based ideas that mankind had unquestioningly accepted for thousands of years.

When Joseph laid out the foundations of his new theology, he did not begin by exploring the largest things imaginable; instead he began by dealing with the smallest things: the basic building blocks of all things which exist in the natural world: the elements.

Science has shown that all things known to exist are composed from some combination of 118 known naturally occurring elements. Each of the 118 elements is distinct in nature from the others. An element can not be broken down into something simpler. An element simply is what it is. Period.

The various religions of the world teach that God—being the only thing that is eternal, without beginning or end—created the elements, either from nothing, or from some other pre-existing substance or supernatural element. But there is not evidence that such an idea is true—and such a notion contradicts the essential facts about the elements: an element can not be broken down into something simpler; an element simply is what it is.

Joseph Smith sensed this contradiction, and so he taught as the doctrinal foundation of his theology a concept which no other religion has embraced:

“The elements are eternal.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:33)

This was—and still is—a revolutionary concept in religion. Joseph Smith was proclaiming that the known elements (the ones listed on the Periodic Table found in school science classes worldwide) are without beginning and without end. The elements themselves—the building blocks of all things which exist—have the very same nature that the world’s religions have ascribed only to God!

This new doctrine—astounding, if not heretical and blasphemous in light of traditional religious thought—when carried to its logical extreme, turns all traditional religious concepts of God, man and the nature of the universe on their heads.

Further astounding the religious world, Joseph Smith not only taught that God did not create the elements; he went so far as to teach that God COULD NOT create the elements.

If the elements are eternal—self-existing, without beginning and without end—then God could not be envisioned as the actual “Creator” or “The First Cause” of all existence.

If the elements are eternal, then existence itself is not dependent on God or some other force or entity. Existence itself simply is.

Our next lesson: "Organized--Not Created".”

Eternal

2010-03-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

Over 2,700 years ago a Judean poet known as Koheleth wrote:

“Utter futility! All is futile!
What real value is there for a man
In all the gains he makes…?
One generation goes, another comes,
But the earth remains forever.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2-3—the New JPS Translation)

The author of Ecclesiastes delves into ideas that have been universal to the human family since time immemorial. Against the seemingly endless cycles of the natural world, individuals are born, they live (often lives of great accomplishment) and they die. With the passage of time, the names and accomplishments of even the greatest individuals are forgotten. In the face of death, the author of Ecclesiastes laments that human life seems meaningless, while human endeavors, struggles and accomplishments seem futile.

What human being, aware of his or her mortality, has not, at some point in life, even only momentarily, thought these same things?

It has been said that religion and theology came about because of the human race’s awareness of its own mortality. How can human intelligence—the very faculty from which springs all human memories, hopes, aspirations and accomplishments; which manifests itself most profoundly in the values, loves, sorrows, fears, joys and personal relationships of the individual—how can such a thing flare into existence, have such an amazing influence on the earth and then simply cease to exist at death?

Human intelligence itself—being able to imagine almost anything except non-existence—seems to rebel at the very notion that it can be annihilated.

And so it is that throughout the course of recorded history humanity has envisioned an aspect of the individual (call it the spirit, the soul, the life force, etc.) which, once it comes into existence, somehow survives death. As all physical things break down and decay, certain Greek philosophers such as Plato declared that this aspect of man—this spirit, this soul—was immaterial, existing separately from the human body and the material world in which we human live, move and have our physical being. These philosophic theories made their way into Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religions—spreading from one civilization to another until they became part of the general thinking of much of the human race.

If it is that an awareness of death gave birth to religion and theology, it is somehow fitting that Mormonism’s new religious paradigm was initially made public by Joseph Smith—the First Mormon—in a funeral sermon.

“I address you on the subject of the dead,” said Joseph Smith as he stood before several thousand of his followers gathered at Nauvoo, Illinois in April 1844. “The death of our beloved brother, Elder King Follett…has more immediately led me to that subject. I have been requested to speak by friends and relatives, but inasmuch as there are a great many in this congregation who live in this city as well as elsewhere, who have lost friends, I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas, so far as I have ability, and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject.”

With this introduction Joseph Smith laid the foundations of a new religion.

BEGINNINGS & ENDS: A NEVER-ENDING LINE

Among most of the world’s religions, it is generally taught that one’s life has a beginning—at birth or conception, or some period in between. It is generally believed that death claims only the physical body; that something essential in each human being survives the death of the body to live on eternally; that once a human life comes into existence, it can never be annihilated.

Likewise it is believed that existence itself had a beginning; that at some point in the past nothing existed, and then universe was created. It is assumed that the universe—that existence itself—is eternal.

One could say that the traditional concept of “eternal” is like that of a straight line which begins at a particular point and then extends onward, forever and ever.

“I TAKE A RING FROM MY FINGER”

This was certainly the concept of “eternal” embraced by most of those who gathered in April1844 to commemorate the passing of Elder King Follett.

But Joseph Smith began the funeral sermon by completely rejecting what could be called a “linear view” of eternity.

“I take my ring from my finger,” he said. “Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round.’

Rather than envisioning eternity as a line, Joseph envisioned it as a circle—without beginning and without end. He reasoned that if something has a beginning, then it can possibly have an end; that if something could be created from nothing, then it could possibly be annihilated.

ONE GOD, WITHOUT BEGINNING OR END

While most Western religions teach that the human soul (or spirit) and the universe will continue on eternally, they also insist that there is one thing and one thing only that is without a beginning: God.

God is usually envisioned as that personal being, power or force that is self-existent; that is “without beginning of days or end of years”; that “is the same—yesterday, today and forever.” God is one thing that existed before anything else existed; the one thing without which nothing else that does exist or could exist. God is envisioned as the “First Cause” (that which caused everything else to exist) and also the only thing that has no cause.

In this way, most religions envision God as being eternal in a way that nothing else can be. All other things had a beginning; they were created. But God, it is believed, is a self-existent being; He simply is.

“We say that God himself is a self-existent being,” said Joseph Smith. “Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads?”

Joseph accepted this notion that God was self-existent—that God was eternal because He had no beginning.

And then, having accepted as true the idea that something could be self-existent—without a beginning and therefore without an end, like a circle—Joseph took a radical step: he asked the crowd gathered before him why this concept could not be applied to things other than God.

"The Lost Symbol" and Mormonism

2010-01-24T10:36:00.000-08:00

For the past five months the Best Sellers list in the United States has been dominated by “The Lost Symbol’—Dan Brown’s long awaited sequel to his 2003 best selling novel, “The Da Vinci Code.

As in its widely heralded predecessor, “The Lost Symbol” centers on the character of Robert Langdon—scholar and world-renowned expert on religious symbolism. Called to Washington D.C. to deliver a lecture on the city’s symbolism, Langdon soon finds himself embroiled with Federal Authorities who are trying to discover the whereabouts of Peter Solomon—a prominent Mason, philanthropist and Langdon’s long-time mentor—who has been mysteriously kidnapped. After examining a bloody clue found in the rotunda of the U.S. Capital building, Langdon finds himself plunged into a clandestine world of Masonic, historical and religious secrets that have been hidden in plain view in the popular art and architecture of America’s founding period.

The story of “The Lost Symbol” is based on an intriguing supposition: despite the fact that most traditionalists, religious leaders and politicians insist that the United States is a “Christian Nation” founded on so-called “Biblical principles,” an unbiased and in depth study of the nation’s founding decades reveals that this is not the case at all; that the Founding Fathers (many of whom were Masons and Enlightenment philosophers) rejected orthodox Christian concepts of God and human nature. As Langdon states early on:

“America has a hidden past…America’s intended destiny has been lost to history.” (“The Lost Symbol,” pg. 82)

As the story unfolds that “hidden past” and “intended destiny” are revealed, along with a concept of God and human nature that may seem startling and revolutionary to readers of “The Lost Symbol”—that is, unless those readers are familiar with the later teachings of Joseph Smith, the First Mormon—the man whom Leo Tolstoy called “The American Prophet.”

THE APOTHEOSIS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON

One of the first scenes of “The Lost Symbol” is set in the rotunda of the U.S. Capital building beneath the great painting that has dominated the rotunda’s ceiling since the 19th century. Each year thousands of site-seers pass under the ceiling, look up at the painting and have no idea what they are seeing.

The painting (above)shows George Washington reigning in heaven in the company of Gods and Goddesses. The painting is entitled “The Apotheosis of George Washington.” If the average person studies the painting at length, he or she would probably be unsure of what to make of it considering that the United States is usually thought of as a “Christian Nation.”

But as bizarre as “The Apotheosis of George Washington” may seem to most people, it is nothing compared to the statute (pictured below) that once dominated the room.

Early in the story, Langdon familiarizes Sato (a Federal official) with the statue:

Langdon said, “This Rotunda was once dominated by a massive sculpture of a bare-chested George Washington….depicted as a god. He sat in the same exact pose as Zeus in the Pantheon, bare chest exposed, left hand holding a sword, right hand raised with the thumb and finger extended.”
Sato had apparently found an online image, because Anderson was starting at her Blackberry in shock. “Hold on, that’s George Washington?”
“Yes,” Langdon said. “Depicted as Zeus.”

Langdon goes on to explain the meaning of symbolism found in the art of the Capital’s Rotunda:

“…There are symbols all over this room that reflect a belief in the Ancient Mysteries.”
“Secret wisdom,” Sato said with more than a hint of sarcasm in her voice. "Knowledge lets men acquire godlike powers?"
"Yes, ma'am."
"That hardly fits with the Christian underpinning of this country."
"So it would seem, but it's true. The transformation of man int God is called apotheosis. Whether or not you're aware of it, this theme--transforming man into god--is the core element of this Rotunda's symbolism...The word apotheosis literally means 'divine transformation'--that of man becoming God. It's from the ancient Greek: apo--'to become'--theos--'god.'...the largest painting in this building is called The Apotheosis of George Washington. And it clearly depicts George Washington being transformed into a god." (pg. 84)

A GOSPEL OF APOTHEOSIS

The concept of humans becoming Gods is, of course, blasphemous not only in orthodox Christianity but in all monotheistic religions (religions which believe in the existence of only one God).

However, there was one American religious leader who late in his life rejected monotheism altogether and taught his followers:

“…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.”

The American religious leader who taught this was Joseph Smith— (pictured below)the founder of a religion that has grown into a wide variety of very different denominations and sects which together constitute the religion popularly referred to as “Mormonism.”

In the early 1840’s during the last years of his life, Joseph Smith became deeply immersed in Freemasonry. Influenced by the Enlightenment principles he encountered in Masonry and elsewhere, Joseph Smith began what he referred to as a “reformation” of Mormonism—a reformation which was cut short by his murder by a lynch mob at the age of thirty-eight.

Central to Joseph Smith’s new theology was the concept of apotheosis. Years later a prominent Utah Mormon, Lorenzo Snow, summed up Joseph’s new theology with this statement:

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”

Most denominations of Mormonism have either rejected or denied Joseph’s revolutionary new theology, or they watered it down to make it more palpable to traditional Christians.

Reform Mormons are the only denomination within Mormonism who fully embrace Joseph Smith’s theology of apotheosis and continue to build upon it as their foundation.

Joseph Smith’s theology of apotheosis is identical to the religious world view that the character of Robert Langdon uncovers in the novel “The Lost Symbol.”

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

Langdon explains how the most influential of the Founding Fathers embraced a very positive view of human nature and human potential. He says:

"Knowledge is power, and the right knowledge lets man perform miraculous, almost godlike tasks." (pg. 86)

Joseph Smith also taught that knowledge was power. "Knowledge is what saves a man," he taught in his famous 1844 sermon, "The King Follett Discourse." Earlier he taught: "if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (Doctrine & Covenants 130:19)

Concerning man’s relationship with God, Joseph Smith taught:

“The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence…” (“The King Follett Discourse”)

Compare the above with the religious concepts that the character of Langdon discusses with another character—Katharine Solomon—toward the end of “The Lost Symbol”:

"All around the world, we are gazing skyward, waiting for God...never realizing that God is waiting for us." Katherine paused, letting her words soak in. "We are the creators, and yet we naively play the role of 'the created.' We see ourselves as helpless sheep buffeted around by the God who made us. We kneel like frightened children, begging for help, for forgiveness, for good luck. But once we realize that we are truly created in the Creator's image, we will start to understand that we, too, must be Creators. When we realize this fact, the door will burst wide open for human potential."
Langdon recalled a passage that had always stuck with him from the work of philosopher Manly P. Hall: If the infinite had not desired man to be wise, he would not have bestowed upon him the faculty of knowing. Langdon gazed up again at the image of The Apotheosis of George Washington--the symbolic ascent of man to deity. The created...becoming the Creator.
"The most amazing part," Katherine said, "is that as soon as we humans begin to harness our true power, we will have enormous control over our world. We will be able to design reality rather than merely react to it." (pg. 501)

Those who adhere to traditional religion concepts may likely have a problem with the idea of apotheosis because it undermines the foundational concept of all monotheist religions—the concept that there is but one all-powerful, all-knowing God or Power at work in the universe; that all of existence is the creation of that one all-knowing God or Power.

Joseph Smith realized this. While embracing the concept of many Gods, he advised others to examine the Bible in light of the Hebrew language in which the book was originally written:

“I will preach on the plurality of Gods….I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods…’Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraitis,’ rendered by King James’ translators, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’….’Eloheim’ is from the word ‘Eloi,’ God, in the singular number; and by adding the word ‘heim,’ it renders it Gods….In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. The world ‘Eloheim’ ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods.” (Joseph Smith, June 16, 1844)

Compare the reasoning of Joseph Smith with that found in the following discussion between the characters of Langdon and Katherine in “The Lost Symbol”:

God is found in the collection of Many...rather than in the One.
"Elohim," Langdon said suddenly, his eyes flying open as he made an unexpected connection.
"I'm sorry?" Katherine was still gazing down at him.
"Elohim," he repeated. "The Hebrew word for God in the Old Testament! I've always wondered about it."
Katherine gave a knowing smile. "Yes. The word is plural."
Exactly! Langdon had never understood why the very first passages of Genesis refered to God as a plural being. Elohim. The Almighty God in Genesis was described not as One...but as Many.
"God is plural," Katherine whispered, "because the minds of man are plural." (pgs. 504--505)

“God is plural because the minds of men are plural.” This idea resonates with Joseph Smith’s teachings on the nature of the human mind:

“The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself...”

The radical theology uncovered by character of Langdon in “The Lost Symbol”—a theology built upon a positive view of human nature and humanity’s god-like potential—is the same theology that Joseph Smith taught during his unfinished reformation of Mormonism in 1844.

This is also the theology of Reform Mormonism—a startlingly new religious paradigm against which Reform Mormons view the universe and humanity’s place in it.

In the following months, this blog will publish a series of short lessons—each of them exploring the basic philosophic concepts that Joseph Smith taught as the basis of his unfinished religious reformation.

Because of these concepts Reform Mormonism is a religion that embraces rational thought and intellectual freedom; the arts, sciences and technology; individualism, equality and human progress. It is a religion suited for modern men and women.

The character of Robert Langdon could easily have been thinking of Joseph Smith when, towards the end of “The Lost Symbol”….

...he thought of the words of a great prophet who boldly declared: Nothing is hidden that will not be made known; nothing is secret that will not come to light. (pg.508)

For more information visit: www.reformmormonism.org

GOD IN UNLIKELY PLACES

2009-12-22T19:03:00.000-08:00

It amazes me how the first Christmas snuck up on the world. Of course then, as now, everyone was waiting for a savior to come; everyone believed that God would intervene in human history. They talked about it; prophesied about it; argued, wept and laughed over it.

But for all their talking, arguing and prophesying, no one thought of walking out the back door and looking for God in the stable. What would God be doing sleeping in a manager? Society was in big trouble! Organized religion was failing miserably. Family ties weren’t as stable as they had once been. Rome ruled the world, and those Greek perverts had for centuries been spreading around all sort of immoral ideas! And don’t forget urban crime, and wars breaking out all over the world. At such a time surely God wouldn’t play a dirty trick on us by sneaking into our world and falling asleep like a newborn in something out of which animals eat!

But according to the Christmas story that is exactly what God did, and the world didn’t even notice. How unfair! Or was it?

There were clues enough, but people overlooked them. There was that teenage girl Mary who had been pregnant nearly six months before she finally got married. Anyone with any moral sense whatsoever knows what kind of a girl she is. Are we supposed to believe that God had something to do with that bit of immorality?
There were those shepherds running around at all hours of the night, singing and shouting about having seen angels and heavenly lights out in their fields, but can anyone take such fanatics seriously? And there were those “wise men” from the East--that cult of superstitious astrologers who marched into town talking about “a newborn king.” One can never make heads-nor-tails of what those Orientals are talking about, and are we really suppose to believe their primitive hocus-pocus?
That’s how people were in Biblical times, and any resemblance between them and us is purely historical and not a coincidence.

I wonder about the main characters in the Christmas story: did they really understand what was going on at the time, or were they as confused and unsure as I might have been were I in their place? Did Mary understand how fully she was accepting God when she accepted an unplanned pregnancy that was sure to cause talk among the neighbors and rifts in her family? Was Joseph aware that he was accepting God when he decided to take Mary as his wife and raise as his own son a child he knew was not biologically his own? Did Herod--builder of his people’s greatest temple--realize that he was attempting to murder God when he ordered the slaying of the innocents?

These are questions I ask myself whenever I read or hear the Christmas story, and these questions are what make the holiday meaningful. I wonder if I see “something of God” in the unwed pregnant teen-age girls in our society, and I wonder what my response to them should be. I wonder about fanatics--our latter-day shepherds who come running to us during the night, singing and shouting about angels appearing in their fields. I think about those people of different cultures, nationalities and religions whose strange beliefs and traditions seem outdated, ridiculous, even uncivilized and barbaric--and yet they, like so many of us, seem to be searching for a new star in the heavens. I think about our modern Herods--those political and religious leaders who would, at all costs, protect the status quo from any “newborn kings” who might pop up. And I think of all the humans who will be born into our world this Christmas and put to sleep in mangers or trash cans because we who have so much can’t seem to find room in our inns; and I wonder if we, for all of our singing of carols and reading of scriptures, are overlooking the Divine being born again and again into our world.

When all is said and done, I find myself contemplating that very first Christmas Eve. I imagine that I am sitting in the dark stable, trying to keep warm between the animals as together we gaze upon what appears to be just another baby sleeping in the manger. Part of me is filled with wonder at the way God sneaks into our world in completely unexpected, sometime even ridiculous ways; it’s as if God had changed the labels around so that no one can really tell who is human and who is divine. Part of me is grateful that I was born nearly 2,000 years after Jesus; grateful that the events of his birth have been handed down to me in the form of a miraculous story with clear-cut heroes and villains; grateful that the story has been enshrined in music, art and tradition. It’s much easier to see God in a manger when the manger has been bought at Wal-mart and is illuminated by the electric lights of an artificial Christmas tree.

Thanksgiving 2009

2009-11-25T11:11:00.000-08:00

For the beauty of the earth,
For the glory of the skies;
For the love which from our birth,
Over and around us lies;
Lord of all, to Thee we raise
This, our hymn of grateful praise.

For the wonder of each hour,
Of the day and of the night;
Hill and vale and tree and flow'r,
Sun and moon, and stars of light;
Lord of all, to Thee we raise
This, our hymn of grateful praise.

For the joy of ear and eye,
For the heart and mind's delight;
For the mystic harmony,
Linking sense to sound and sight;
Lord of all, to Thee we raise
This, our hymn of grateful praise.

For the joy of human love,
Brother, sister, parent, child;
Friends on Earth and friends above,
For all gentle thoughts and mild;
Lord of all, to Thee we raise
This, our hymn of grateful praise.

"Verily, I say unto you my friends: Fear not; let your hearts be comforted; yea rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks." (Joseph Smith, August 6, 1833)

SEX Part 4: JOSEPH SMITH'S CENSORED DOCTRINE

2009-06-14T10:44:00.000-07:00

A story in this week's TIME magazine--entitled, "The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?"--quite correctly sums up the theology of the LDS regarding heterosexual marriage as the means by which humans may enter God's presence in the next life, and become Gods themselves.

"...[LDS Mormons] believe we existed prenatally as God's "spirit children," that our earthly life is an interlude for learning and testing and that we continue developing after death. The best Mormons may become in the afterlife parents to their own batch of spirit children...The return to God is accomplished by heterosexually founded families, not individuals, and only as a partner in a procreative relationship can a soul eventually create spirit children." (TIME magazine, June 22, 2009)

While the above is the theology of both the LDS and FLDS churches, in our three previous lessons we have shown that none of these ideas were ever taught by Joseph Smith--the founder of Mormonism. They are not found in Mormon scripture, nor can they be found in any of the writings or sermons of Joseph Smith.

In fact, as we have shown, in his final and greatest sermon "The King Follett" discourse, Joseph Smith actually laid out a theology regarding the eternal nature of the human mind and spirit that contradicts the above LDS theology in every single aspect.

It was in his "King Follett Discourse” that Joseph publicly revealed his vision of humanity’s divine potential and the means by which humans might become Gods.

Nowhere did he mention marriage (monogamous or polygamous) as the means to becoming a God.

Nowhere did he ever mention the sexual production of spiritual offspring (having “spirit children”) as either the means of becoming a God, or the function of being a God.

But toward the end of the discourse, he laid out a vision of the nature of Gods that so contradicts mainstream LDS theology regarding marriage and sex, that the LDS Church, LDS General Authorities s and mainstream LDS publishing companies have deleted the paragraph from the discourse whenever they have published it.

In this lesson we will reveal this long censored paragraph and show how it completely undermines LDS theology—and consequently, LDS theology and attitudes towards marriage, gender roles, human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.

KNOWLEDGE—NOT MARRIAGE AND HETEROSEXUALITY--LEADS TO GODHOOD
Joseph Smith taught that one thing—and one thing alone—could exalt humanity to Godhood: knowledge:

“”Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge….if man has a knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins he will be punished for them…a man is his own tormentor and his own condemner…the torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.”

Joseph Smith went on to explain that all sins would be forgiven; that opening one’s mind to further knowledge was key in overcoming the effects of sin. He further explained that only one sin—which he referred to as “the sin against the Holy Ghost”—could not be forgiven. The reason why it couldn’t be forgiven? Because this particular sin was a rejection of knowledge itself; it consisted of knowing something with complete certainty and still refusing to admit it. Joseph explained that someone “has so say that the sun does not shine while he sees it.”

When these ideas are put in context of the discourse’s main subject (which Joseph explained was the nature of “the mind of man”), there can be no reasonable debate regarding the following: the individual’s ability and willingness to continually embrace new knowledge—and this alone—is what leads to Godhood.

“The glory of God is intelligence,” Joseph had taught in a scripture he dictated years before the discourse. Godhood and the glory of Godhood reside in human intelligence—in the mind’s capacity to comprehend increasingly complex ideas, and to embrace and act upon advanced levels of knowledge. The potential for Godhood does not reside in the human genitals and reproductive system, but in human intelligence.

As Joseph taught:

“…you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burning, and to sit in glory, enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse.”)

CHILD GODS

In the final portion of his “King Follett Discourse,” Joseph laid out a vision of the resurrection of the dead and the final state of human beings exalted, by virtue of knowledge, as Gods.

Joseph Smith taught:

“A question may be asked—"Will mothers have their children in eternity?" Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be forever living in the burnings of God. It will never grow; it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.”
The vision of eternity described above completely undermines the LDS and FLDS doctrine that “Celestial Marriage” and the ability to sexually produce “spirit offspring” in eternity are required for Godhood.

Joseph Smith clearly taught that small children—who had not reached an age of sexual maturity, and who were not married—would exist as Gods because they possessed “all the intelligence of a God.” While remaining children in physical stature and sexual development, their minds would continue to develop, grow and progress eternally. (This brings an entire new depth of meaning to Jesus saying regarding children: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.”)

The above paragraph is completely out of harmony with the entire LDS and FLDS “plan of salvation”—which requires physical and sexual maturation to adulthood, as well as marriage for Time and Eternity in order to become a God. Thus, this offending paragraph has been censored from LDS Church published editions of the King Follett Discourse for over one hundred years—even though it is an essential aspect of the discourse’s visionary climax.

Famed Mormon theologian and LDS Church General Authority B.H. Roberts (who more than any other LDS Church leader of his time, was dedicated to preserving the Discourse and promoting it among Mormons and non-Mormons) was compelled to find some justification for why he and the LDS Church deleted the above paragraph. While never reproducing the paragraph in his footnotes to the discourse, Roberts simply wrote:

“ The omitted paragraph indicated by the dots refers to the exaltation and power that will be wielded by children in the resurrection before attaining the stature of men and women; but which development will surely come to those who are raised from the dead as infants. It was quite clear that there was some imperfection in the report of the Prophet’s remarks at this point and hence the passage is omitted.”

Despite his valuable service in the development of Utah Mormon theology, Roberts clearly and deliberately misleads his readers on two important issues.

First, nowhere in the Discourse or the censored paragraph did Joseph speak about “the power that will be wielded by children in the resurrection before attaining the stature of men and women; but which development will surely come to those who are raised from the dead as infants.”
In fact, Joseph Smith’s entire point in the censored paragraph was that a child who dies will be resurrected as a child, that he/she will become a God while still a child, and that the child “will never grow; it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God.”

Because Joseph’s doctrine contradicts the LDS/FLDS doctrine on marriage created by Orson Pratt (after Joseph Smith’s death) and adopted by Brigham Young as official LDS doctrine in 1852, later Utah Mormons developed the doctrine that those who died as infants and children would be resurrected as infants and children; they would then physically grow until they reached sexually maturity, at which time they were then be sealed as a husband or wife in a Celestial Marriage; then, as sexually mature, exalted human beings, they would sexually produce spiritual offspring, over which they would then rule as Gods.

But this is completely at odds with Joseph Smith’s vision of Godhood, for he quite plainly taught: “Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.”

By contrast, LDS and FLDS theology teaches that one cannot be enthroned as God until after one is married and has sexually produced (or is in the process of sexually producing) “spirit children” over which one may then “reign” as a Heavenly Father or Mother.

B.H. Roberts also deliberately misleads his readers by saying that “it was quite clear that there was some imperfection in the report of the Prophet’s remarks at this point.”

(Above) B.H. Roberts

In fact, just the opposite is clear. There are six different reports of the King Follett Discourse, and alls versions containing this portion of the sermon are in complete agreement: they all maintain that children will be resurrected as children, that they will remain children, and that as children they will reign as Gods. (To compare the various version, click here.)

The only thing “imperfect” in any of these accounts is that they undermine the theology developed after the death of Joseph Smith by the LDS Church in order to justify first polygamous marriage and later monogamous marriage (and thus heterosexuality) as pre-requisites for Godhood.

REFORM MORMONISM, HUMAN SEXUALITY, INDIVDIUALITY AND THE HUMAN MIND

Reform Mormonism rejects the theology of the LDS and FLDS Churches—as well as any of the denomination that have splintered from them—that regards marriage and sexual reproduction as essential to Godhood.

Reform Mormonism is founded upon the ideas that Joseph Smith introduced during his Nauvoo-era reformation of Mormonism—a reformation that was cut short by his untimely murder.

Reform Mormons hold that knowledge and increased intelligence constitute the path to Godhood; that the human mind—being eternal, uncreated and “co-equal with God”—holds within itself the keys to communion with God, a restoration to the presence of God and progression toward Godhood itself.
Human sexuality is good—and for mature, adult human beings may be essential to achieving joy in this life and in eternity. But that is quite different from the LDS and FLDS position—which is that sexuality within the confines of a Church/LDS Priesthood sanctioned “Eternal Marriage” is required for exaltation for ALL human beings. Nowhere did Joseph Smith ever teach such a thing.

In the LDS and FLDS churches, single adults and homosexuals are quite literally locked out of the Celestial Kingdom. Under the LDS and FLDS systems, children, too, are barred from Godhood until they grow up and become sexually mature, married adults. When all is said and done, in the LDS and FLDS systems, the potential for and means of attaining Godhood are in the genitals and reproductive system.
In Reform Mormonism no such obstacles exist. All individuals—regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation or marital status—exist in the image and likeness of God. If the single adult, the small child, the woman, the man, the homosexual were to see God, they would see a being such as themselves.

The one attribute that all humans—regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation—share with one another and with God is that of the human mind and human intelligence.

The mind is eternal, uncreated, without beginning or end—“co-equal with God” as Joseph Smith taught.

It is through the life of the mind and the exercise of human intelligence, the human beings can cast aside the superstitions, prejudices and bigotries that have, since time immemorial, been a burden on and a cursing to the human family.

It is through the life of the mind and the exercise of human intelligence, that unions between human beings—and with the Gods—are established.

It is through the life of the mind and the exercise of human intelligence, that each individual may better understand human sexuality, and integrate it into his or her own life so that it might bring to pass greater joy and happiness.

SEX Part 3

2009-05-17T11:45:00.000-07:00

ARE OUR SPIRITS THE LITERAL OFFSPRING OF GOD?

As pointed out in our last lesson Joseph Smith’s teaching that the spirit of man is uncreated comes into conflict with what is probably the most widely believed doctrine among LDS and FLDS Mormons: that our spirits were literally begotten by a heavenly father and a heavenly mother. Mormon scholar Dan Hale has pointed out that the origin of this particular doctrine…

“…has remained somewhat obscure…there are no clear statements of the doctrine in any of the [LDS] church’s four standard work…In tracing the doctrine of spirit birth backward we find hundreds of references to it throughout Mormon literature, and the teaching that spirits originated through pre-mortal procreation seems to have been the prevailing explanation ever since the Nauvoo period. What is surprising, however, is that none of Joseph Smith‘s recorded sermons--including those delivered in Nauvoo—teach the doctrine. In fact, several seem to teach a doctrine logically at odds with the belief that spirits are the literal offspring of God through pre-mortal birth…Smith’s own doctrinal teaching was that the human spirit as a conscious entity is eternal—as eternal as God. It has no beginning and no end. It was not created; it is self-existing.”

A modern painting depicting Joseph Smith discussing doctrine with a fellow-Mormon in Nauvoo, Illinois.

ORSON PRATT: AUTHOR OF THE LDS & FLDS DOCTRINE

The idea that spirits were sexually begotten was introduced not by Joseph Smith but by early Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt. In a letter dated February 14, 1842, Pratt—while serving as a missionary in England—wrote to an Elder Walker:

“When I write to you I feel to let my imagination rove…let us indulge our follies at this time and wander into the field of imagination. Some thirteen thousand years ago in Heaven or in Paradise (say) we came into existences or in other words received a spiritual organization according to the laws that govern spiritual births in eternity. We were there and then (say) born in the express images and likeness of him by whom we received our spiritual birth.”

Orson Pratt made it quite clear in this letter that the above idea was mere speculation on his part; that it came from indulging his “follies.” Indeed, his notion that thirteen thousand years ago our spirits “came into existence or in other words received a spiritual organization” seems to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching that “Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle.”

Orson Pratt (above) authored the LDS and FLDS doctrine that our spirits were sexually begotten by a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother

It wasn’t until a year after the murder of Joseph Smith that Pratt made public his notion of our spirits having been begotten by heavenly parents, publishing it under the heading “The Mormon Creed” in his work “Prophetic Almanac for 1845.” At the 1845 General Conference, Brigham Young endorsed the concept as doctrine.

Why did the Mormon Apostles so eagerly embrace Pratt’s doctrine?

JUSTIFYING POLYGAMY

It should be remembered that it was among other things Joseph Smith’s secret practice of polygamy that set in to motion the events that led to his arrest and murder by a lynch mob. His death sent the Mormon community at Nauvoo, Illinois into chaos.

(Above) The murder of Joseph Smith a Carthage jail in Illinois.

Most—but not all—of the Mormon Apostles thought it was their duty to maintain order in the community by denying accusations of polygamy while at the same time secretly maintaining the practice. Eager to move Mormons out of the United States to Mexican territory where, free from U.S. law, they could practice polygamy openly, Brigham Young and the Apostles who followed him began constructing a theology justifying the practice.

Once Brigham Young and a newly formed quorum of Twelve Apostles had situated the majority of their followers in Utah territory—completely separated from mainstream American society— they decided that not only would they end their public denials of polygamy, they would announce to the world that polygamy was now official LDS Church doctrine and that all LDS Church members were expected to practice it. (Only thirty percent of LDS Church members ever did.)

Brigham Young called Orson Pratt to announce the Church’s new doctrine to the world, and to explain the theology justifying it. Pratt declared:

“…That spirit that now dwells within each man, and each woman, of this vast assembly of people, is more than a thousand years old, and I would venture to say, that it is more than five thousand years old.
“But how was it made? When was it made? And by whom was it made? If our spirits existed thousands of years ago–if they began to exist–if there were a beginning to their organization, by what process was this organization carried on? Through what medium, and by what system of laws? Was it by a direct creation of the Almighty? Or were we framed according to a certain system of laws, in the same manner as our tabernacles [physical bodies]? If we were to reason from analogy—if we admit analogical reasoning in the question, what would we say? We should say that our spirits were formed by generation, the same as the body or tabernacle of flesh and bones.”

Pratt begins his argument for his new doctrine on the premise that our spirits had a beginning, that they "began to exist." This premise is the exact opposite of the main idea that Joseph Smith laid out in the King Follett Discourse: the spirit of each individual had no beginning; it is eternal, without beginning or end; it has always existed and "there was no creation about it."

Despite completely contradicting Joseph Smith's teachings, Pratt’s new doctrine became the theological justification for LDS polygamy. Plural marriage gave one man the opportunity to have more biological children than he might have with one wife. Having as many children as possible in this life, by as many wives as would marry him, allowed a polygamous man the opportunity to experience on earth what Orson Pratt, Brigham Young and their associates now taught was the type of existence led by God the Father. In 1852 the LDS Church’s official position was only by practicing polygamy in this life could one become a God or Goddess in eternity; Godhood itself consisted of the ability to sexually produce spirit children eternally.

Brigham Young declared: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)

It should be noted that the two other Mormon communities at this time—those in Michigan under the leadership of James Strange, and those whom Joseph Smith himself (shortly before his death) sent to settle in Texas under the leadership of Apostle Lyman Wright—both practiced polygamy. Yet neither community taught that polygamy—or even marriage itself—was required to become a God or Goddess. The Texas Mormons taught that while marriage—either monogamous or polygamous—might add to one’s glory in the Celestial, they never taught that marriage was a requirement for Celestial Glory of Godhood.

(Above) An LDS Mormon polygamist family in Utah around 1900.

Pratt’s doctrine (of the spirit being sexually generated by heavenly parents) was used by the LDS Church not only to justify polygamy, but to refute an almost universally held assumption at the time: that Joseph Smith’s plural marriages sprang from his own romanticism and sexual desire.

THE ROOTS OF MORMON POLYGAMY: ‘SPIRITUAL WIFERY’ & FREE LOVE

From the early 1830’s (before the concepts of Priesthood authority and Priesthood ordinances were introduced in Mormonism) there had been rumors that Joseph Smith secretly advocated polygamy and “spiritual wifery.”

During Joseph’s childhood and teenage years, in the same region of New York in which he and other founding Mormons lived, the controversial religious leader Jacob Cochran openly taught a form of polygamous free-love called “spiritual wifery.” Cochran established communities—The Society of Free Brerhren and Sisters—in Allegany County, New York and in Saco, Maine. In 1832 Mormon missionaries went to Saco to preach to Cochran’s followers, and according to Maine historians, many “Cochranites” converted to Mormonism—enough so that on August 21, 1835, the Mormons held a church conference in Saco.

An 1830's drawing of the Cochranites--a religious community near the boyhood home of Joseph Smith who practiced "spiritual wifery" and free-love. In 1832 Mormon missionaries preached to a Cochranite community in Maine, converting a significant number to Mormonism.

“Spiritual wifery” and “the spirit wife-system” were ideas that made their way into Mormonism early on, and stayed until shortly after the death of Joseph Smith. For proof one need look no further than statements from one of Joseph Smith’s own wives: Helen Mar Kimball Whitney—the daughter of LDS Apostle Heber C. Kimball. According to Helen: "At the time [in Nauvoo] ‘spiritual wife’ was the title by which every woman who entered into this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order."

Helen Mar Whitney (pictured above in middle) was Joseph Smith's youngest wife. In her autobiography she wrote that during Joseph Smith's life-time, plural wives were called "spiritual wives."

HAPPINESS: JOSEPH SMITH’S JUSTIFICATION FOR POLYGAMY

An objective study of Mormon history indicates that Joseph Smith believed that in God’s eyes romantic love and the pursuit of human pleasure and happiness justified plural marriage. He did not promote sexual hedonism, but believed that the institutions of law, marriage and family should be made to accommodate humanity’s polygamous sexual nature. As in the practices of Cochran’s Free Brethren and Sisters, Joseph’s views allowed for female polygamy as well: many of his plural wives had husbands other than Joseph. He also believed that ignorance and prejudices found in the mainstream religious traditions regarding human sexuality blinded most people to the common sense and virtue of his liberal views, and that the world would be in an up-roar was it to learn of his beliefs and his polygamous relationships.

(Above) An 1840's portrait of Joseph Smith--The First Mormon

In a letter written to Nancy Rigdon (the niece of Sidney Rigdon) and dated April 11, 1842, Joseph Smith explained the justification for polygamy. Considering that he had recently proposed marriage to Nancy (and she had refused), one would expect Joseph to have made some reference to the begetting of “spirit children” in eternity, or to polygamy being essential to Godhood. But as in every letter and journal entry he wrote, and every sermon and revelation he ever gave, Joseph Smith was completely silent regarding both of these two ideas.
In his justification for polygamy, Joseph Smith wrote:

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it…That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another.

“God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed…

“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.”

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow…

“…in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances….

“…If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation…

“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive…He says: ‘Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;’…no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.”

THE REJECTION OF ROMANTICISM

So why did the LDS Church ignore Joseph Smith linking of human sexuality with happiness? Why did Orson Pratt and Brigham Young feel the need to introduce into Utah Mormonism a theology that made eternal procreation not only the justification for polygamy, but also the means by which Godhood is obtained and human spirits come into being?
When Joseph Smith began sharing his unconventional views on sex and marriage with the leaders of the Mormon community at Nauvoo, few at first were receptive. Most of these men came from New England (the heart of Puritanism in America) and had, before converting to Mormonism, been members of Protestant congregations and movements that tended to be legalistic, strict and dour.
Brigham Young initially found Joseph’s views of sex and marriage at odds with his entire system of morals. Later in life when he referred to his weeks of struggling to understand and embrace polygamy, he said that when he saw a passing funeral, he envied the man in the coffin.
Orson Pratt was so horrified that he left Mormonism for a time, and turned against Joseph. Some Mormons recalled that for weeks following his break with Joseph, Orson lived alone out-of-doors along the banks of the Mississippi, so conflicted and distraught that many thought he had lost his mind.
Both Young and Pratt eventually accepted polygamy as a religious principle—both of them marrying many women and fathering dozens of children. But given their backgrounds and their initial reactions to polygamy, there is no reason to believe that they were completely comfortable with Joseph’s justification for polygamy.

While Joseph enjoyed the company of women and tended to be liberal in his views regarding their rights, Brigham Young declared that no man cared less for the private company of women than he did. When Brigham Young rose to power following Joseph’s death one of the first things he did was abolish Nauvoo’s Female Relief Society (the society which Joseph had taken great pride in helping establish). Later in Utah, he often lashed out from the pulpit at women who found polygamy emotionally painful, or who refused to submit to the rule of their husbands. While Joseph was very much the romantic when courting women—often quoting poetry to them, peppering his conversation with Latin phrases or speaking rapturously of having loved them before the world began—neither Brigham Young or Orson Pratt had any such inclinations—or talents.
For these two men—and for many of the Mormon men who migrated to Utah—sex was reserved for marriage and for the purpose of procreation. The culture from which most of them came—that of the backwoods Yankee and the Western pioneer—was suspicious of, and uncomfortable with the romanticizing of sexual love and passion. Sexual passion was part of nature, and to the frontier mindset nature was something that one had to subdue, harness and use for the good of society. Pleasure and personal happiness had to be put on hold, or even sacrificed altogether, in order to survive present ordeals. For many people the idea of marrying for love alone was still new and fraught with potential dangers. And so in the earliest days of Mormon Utah, marriage—be it monogamous or polygamous—had to serve some purpose higher than mere personal happiness and pleasure. Marriage existed for the survival of the human race and civilization itself. Marriage was an obligation, a sacrifice and ultimately a commandment that one was to obey without question or complaint.
This approach was mirrored in the theology of Orson Pratt: marriage was the relationship through which humans, in eternity, would sexually produce spirits, who would then be sent to inhabit future worlds. Heterosexual intercourse and procreation within the bounds of an eternal marriage, authorized by the LDS Church, became the sole means by which one became a God.

INTELLIGENCE & SPIRIT: WORD GAMES & THEOLOGY

Later Mormon theologians—realizing that this doctrine not only seemed to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching on the uncreated nature of the spirit, but also that the doctrine was not explicitly laid out anywhere in Mormon scripture—tried to effect a reconciliation of sorts.

The brilliant Mormon scholar and theologian B.H. Roberts wrote at great length trying to reconcile the LDS Church theology with that of Joseph Smith. He tried to establish “intelligence” as something very different from a person’s individual “spirit.” Roberts proposed that “intelligence” was the uncreated, refined matter from which heavenly parents, through sexual union, organize the “spirit” of each of their children.

B.H. Roberts (above) introduced the LDS doctrine that "spirit" and "intelligence" were two different things.

Modern LDS General Authorities and apologists have continued this line of reasoning—though the images that this theology brings to mind are rather odd to say the least: a God and a Goddess have sexual intercourse, and somehow through this intercourse a substance (“intelligence”) that exists uncreated in the universe enters their bodies and the womb of the Goddess, where it develops and from which it is eventually born as a new individual “spirit child.”

The attempt to different between the words “intelligence” and “spirit”—the attempt to present these as either two different things, or as one thing that somehow evolves from a lower state (“intelligence”) into a higher state (“a spirit”) is completely overthrown by the words of Joseph Smith himself.

Joseph Smith made not differentiation between the concepts of “spirit,” “intelligence” and “mind.” He declared in no uncertain terms:

“INTELLIGENCE is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. IT IS A SPIRIT FROM AGE TO AGE and there is no creation about it.” (King Follett Discourse)

Mormon historian Dan Hale sums it up, writing:

“Smith used the terms ’spirit,’ ’soul,’ intelligence,’ and ’mind’ synonymously to describe the inchoate, indestructible essence of life. This summary is drawn from eight documentary sources--dating from 6 may 1833 to 7 April 1844. None of them suggest that God presides over the spirits because they are his begotten off spring, but because he was more intelligent, more advanced, than they and because he organized them into a pre-mortal council…In conclusion, one of the most cherished doctrines of [LDS] Mormonism, that spirits are the literal offspring of God, has been taught by virtually all [LDS] Mormon leaders. The notable exception is probably Joseph Smith, whose direct statements teach a doctrine contrary to that of his closest associates, men and women who maintain that they were simply perpetuating what he had begun.”

THE CENSURED CLIMAX OF JOSEPH SMITH’S GREATEST SERMON

Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse not only contradicts the LDS and FLDS doctrine of the spirit being produced by sexually produced by a Heavenly Father and Mother, it also rejects the entire doctrine that heterosexual Celestial Marriage (monogamous or polygamous) is necessary in order for a human being to progress to Godhood.

While many LDS historians, Church authorities and apologists have written about King Follett Discourse, nearly all have ignored the visionary conclusion of this sermon.

Why have they ignored it?

Because the LDS Church has deleted it from every authorized publication of “The King Follett Discourse.”

In our next lesson we will print this deleted portion of the discourse, and explore the extraordinary vision of Godhood that it contains.

This censored portion of the King Follett Discourse undermines the LDS and FLDS doctrine that eternal heterosexual marriage is necessary for Celestial Glory and Godhood.

The 2009 REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY

2009-05-10T10:40:00.000-07:00

The 2009 Reform Mormon Directory is now being organized so that Reform Mormons and those interested in Reform Mormonism will have a way to contact with one another. This directory will only be made available to those who decide to include their names in it; it will not be made public.

If you would like to be included in the directory, send me the following information:

Your full name (first and last name)
Your city, state and country
Your email address

You will have to submit ALL THREE of the above to be included. You may also include (if you'd like) the following information (but these are not required):
Mailing Address
Phone Number

If you are interested in being included in the 2009 Reform Mormon Directory, send your information to the editor fo this blog (Rob Lauer) at: Rlauernyc@aol.com

All information must be submitted by JUNE 1, 2009. Copies of the directory will be emailed to everyone listed in the directory no later that June 7, 2009.

SEX: Part 2

2009-03-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

WHERE DID MY SPIRIT COME FROM?

According to the theology embraced by the LDS and FLDS Churches, the spirit of every human being was begotten by a Heavenly Father and born to a Heavenly Mother in eternity before the earth was organized. Each individual human spirit is the product of procreation—not creation; the product of a sexual union between a God and a Goddess.

Above is he famous LDS Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah; below is the FLDS Temple in Texas. Though both of these Mormon denominations differ on the issue of polygamy, both churches teach that a person's spirit is the sexually produced "spiritual offspring" of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.

This is still the official theology of the LDS Church, and it is the basis of that church’s intensive political campaigns over the past 30 years against feminism, the ERA, same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions and policies aimed at protecting the civil rights of homosexuals. In the LDS Church’s 1995 “Proclamation on the Family,” the doctrine was explicitly cited:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents…”

Not only is this doctrine an essential part of the LDS and FLDS Church’s theology, it is also embraced by the majority of Mormon denominations and religious communities that have branched off of these two churches.

According to the theology of LDS, FLDS and most other Utah Mormons, the ability to procreate in eternity—that is the ability of a male and female to sexually reproduce by conceiving and giving birth to “spirit children”—is THE defining aspect of Godhood itself. Eternal beings unable to sexually produce “spirit children”—even in the highest level of glory, called “The Celestial Kingdom”—are not called Gods, but merely Angels who are unable to progress eternally.

Above is a photo from the early 1900's of President Joseph F. Smith (the nephew of Joseph Smith, and the President of the LDS Church from 1901 until 1918 ) with his plural wives and children.

For LDS, FLDS and other Utah Mormons, heterosexual intercourse and reproduction are the process by which an individual achieves his or her eternal salvation and exaltation. The single woman, the bachelor and the homosexual are without hope unless they are married in a Temple ceremony (according to the LDS Church), practice polygamy (according to the FLDS Church) or enter some form of heterosexual matrimony (according to most other forms of Utah Mormonism.)

JOSEPH SMITH: THE FIRST MORMON

All Mormons trace their religion and theology back to Joseph Smith—the First Mormon. LDS, FLDS and other Utah Mormons believe that Joseph was the greatest prophet who ever lived. The have canonized as scripture the following tribute to Joseph, written by John Taylor, shortly after his murder on June 27, 1844 :

“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. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fullness the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood…” (Doctrine & Covenants 135:3)

Given the fact that LDS, FLDS and Utah Mormons give such praise to Joseph Smith, one would assume that one would find abundant references in Joseph’s sermons and writings to the doctrine of the human spirit being sexually begotten and born to Heavenly Parents.

Above is the only known photo of Joseph Smith--the First Mormon.

LDS, FLDS and Utah Mormons claim that the doctrine of spirits being the sexually produced off-spring of a Heavenly Father and Mother constitutes an essential part of "the fullness of the everlasting gospel”—cited in the above tribute to Joseph.

But in preaching “the fullness of the everlasting gospel,” did Joseph Smith actually teach this doctrine—ever?

THE SILENCE OF JOSEPH SMITH

It may come as a shock to most LDS, FLDS and Utah Mormons to discover that Joseph Smith never taught the doctrine that the human spirit is the sexually begotten offspring of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.

There is not a single reference in the Bible, “The Book of Mormon,” “The Doctrine & Covenants” or “The Pearl of Great Prince” to this central LDS, FLDS, Utah Mormon doctrine. In his last and greatest sermon, “The King Follet Discourse”—the entire subject of which was the nature of God, the origin of one's spirit and the means by which humans can progress toward Godhood—the idea is never mentioned. In fact, as we will show, the ideas that Joseph Smith introduced in this sermon actually undermine the LDS and FLDS theology regarding this subject.

Above is a 19th century painting of Joseph Smith preaching to Native Americans in Ohio in the early 1830s.

Joseph Smith made numerous references to God the Father having an eternal companion—a wife, who was referred to as our Heavenly Mother, or Eternal Mother. But nowhere has there been found a single instance in which he wrote or declared that She gave birth to our spirits.

Mormon scholar Dan Hale has pointed out that the origin of this particular doctrine…

“…has remained somewhat obscure…there are no clear statements of the doctrine in any of the [LDS] church’s four standard work.”

In his study, “The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought,” Van Hale concludes:

“In tracing the doctrine of spirit birth backward we find hundreds of references to it throughout Mormon literature, and the teaching that spirits originated through premortal procreation seems to have been the prevailing explanation ever since the Nauvoo period. What is surprising, however, is that none of Joseph Smith‘s recorded sermons--including those delivered in Nauvoo--teach the doctrine. In fact, several seem to teach a doctrine logically at odds with the belief that spirits are the literal offspring of God through premortal birth…Smith’s own doctrinal teaching was that the human spirit as a conscious entity is eternal--as eternal as God. It has no beginning and no end. It was not created; it is self-existing. God, being more advanced than the other spirits, organized them and instituted laws to give them the privilege to advance like himself…Smith used the terms ’spirit,’ ’soul,’ intelligence,’ and ’mind’ synonymously to describe the inchoate, indestructible essence of life. This summary is drawn from eight documentary sources--dating from 6 may 1833 to 7 April 1844. None of them suggest that God presides over the spirits because they are his begotten off spring, but because he was more intelligent, more advanced, than they and because he organized them into a premortal council…In conclusion, one of the most cherished doctrines of [LDS] Mormonism, that spirits are the literal offspring of God, has been taught by virtually all [LDS] Mormon leaders. The notable exception is probably Joseph Smith, whose direct statements teach a doctrine contrary to that of his closest associates, men and women who maintain that they were simply perpetuating what he had begun.”

WHAT JOSEPH DID TEACH ON THE ORIGIN OF ONE’S SPIRIT:
THE UNCREATED SPIIRT/ THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

In “The King Follet Discourse,” delivered on April 7, 1845, Joseph Smith declared:

“I have another subject to dwell upon…that is, the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit. All men say God created it in the beginning. The very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it all ye ends of the world, for God has told me so. Before I get through, I will make a man appear a fool if he doesn't believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.”

Traditional western religion has taught that all existence is the production of a divine creation; that existence had a beginning, with God as the First Cause. Towards the end of his life, Joseph Smith rejected this doctrine outright, declaring that existence was eternal and uncreated; that the world in which we lived was “organized” by the Gods from existing matter. (See “The Book of Abraham.”)

In other words, existence itself is omnipotent. God, who is also eternal, exists and can only be understood within the greater context of existence as a whole.This laid the groundwork for Joseph’s most radical and far-reaching teaching on the nature of man:

“We say that God himself is a self-existing God. Who told you so? It is correct enough, but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles?….
“The mind of man is as immortal as God himself…. Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man…"

"I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose I cut it in two; as the Lord lives, because it has a beginning, it would have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end…But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it… "

Above is a mid-19th century drawing of Joseph Smith preaching the King Follet Discourse at the April 1844 church conference in Nauvoo, Illinois.

“The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits. I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life that are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good. And when I tell you of these things that were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.”

Joseph Smith taught that not only was our spirit/mind eternal and uncreated, it was also by nature free. In May 1833, Joseph declared:

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:29—30)

Clearly Joseph Smith did not teach that one’s spirit was the product of creation or pro-creation.
Instead, he taught that one’s spirit was “co-equal with God”—that it was self-existent, without beginning or end.

“Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it,” Joseph Smith boldly declared.

THE INDIVIDUAL AND INDEPENDENCE

Reform Mormons see the virtue of Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding the eternal, uncreated nature of the human spirit, and its autonomy. They understand that this doctrine is in harmony with a philosophy that that embraces individual human rights, a philosophy that refuses to subjugate individuals to roles and stereotypes based on gender and ancient concepts regarding sex and reproductive functions.

Religious denominations such as the LDS and FLDS Churches might claim to be protecting the sanctity of marriage and family through their political activism, their embracing of polygamy and arranged marriages, and by teaching that one’s spirit is sexually produced spiritual offspring of a Heavenly Father and Mother.

But the end result is that the complex nature of individual human beings is denied, and the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the sake of preserving a particular ideas about sex and marriage--ideas that Joseph Smith neither taught. In claiming to defend the sanctity of marriage and sex, LDS and FLDS theology actually reduces human sexuality to a barn-yard mentality: the most important function of marriage and sex is achieving pregnancy and giving birth. The body, mind and spirit of the individual—male and female—is subordinated to one particular biological function of the body. Human sexuality with all of its emotional and psychological complexities, challenges and joys—along with its ability to intensify the spiritual connection between individuals—is, in the end, approached in the same way a breeder of dogs cattle or chickens would approach the sexuality of those particular animals.

Reform Mormons find that approach insulting to human nature—a nature which we believe we hold in common with Deity Itself.

Reform Mormonism embraces reality and the natural world as it is. Following the example of Joseph Smith, and building upon the new theology he introduced during his Nauvoo-era Reformation of Mormonism, we look to nature, employing reason and logic in our ongoing effort to understand human nature and human potential, to institute ordinances, and to articulate doctrines and ideas that will uplift and exalt the individual.

Joseph Smith’s radically new teaching that the individual spirit is an uncreated, eternal entitywithout beginning or end; without a creation in its past, or a complete annihilation in its future—an entity that is “co-equal with God” is one of the foundational doctrines of Reform Mormonism.

Self-described “Cultural Mormon,” William Call has noted:

“…Mormonism’s original ideas concerning the eternal, uncreated nature of the human soul are as pertinent today as they were when first given…At the heart of Joseph Smith’s teachings is the principle that that which is most sacred is the eternal, uncreated intelligence or soul of man and that no God or entity whatsoever has the power to either create, destroy or assume jurisdiction over the individual. This doctrine stands apart from Christian theology. It is the underlying and most essential doctrine of democracy. It is not only thoroughly in accord with the sentiments and attitudes of democratic societies, it provides the fundamental spiritual foundation upon which democracy is built. So long as Mormonism advocates and stands by this doctrine it will prosper…Mormonism, in its new, enlightened state, may lift itself up as the one viable religion remaining in today’s modern democratic world…A world religion…is one that provides the underlying spiritual foundation for the world’s people…A religion that provides the spiritual foundation for the forces of democracy that are spreading themselves over the whole world, which religion Mormonism alone can claim to be, could well become, in the centuries if not the decades to come, the religion of the whole world!”

A statue of Joseph Smith--the First Mormon

FROM WHENCE CAME THE LDS/FLDS DOCTRINE OF “SPIRIT CHILDREN”

From where did the LDS and FLDS Churches get their doctrine that our spirits are the literal spiritual offspring of a Heavenly Father and Mother? If Joseph Smith never taught this doctrine, who did? And why did the LDS Church embrace this doctrine? This will be the subject of our next lesson.

SEX!!!!!

2009-03-08T16:27:00.000-07:00

Do we have your attention now? Good.

In this post and in the ones to follow, this blog will address an issue that we feel must be addressed: Sex and Mormonism; most importantly Reform Mormonism’s theology regarding sex—how it differs from that of the LDS Church (mistakenly assumed by most people to be the one and only Mormon denomination), and how it is more in harmony with the concepts put forth by Joseph Smith—Mormonism’s Founder.

If you think that anti-gay ideology, political activism against Same Sex Marriage, and forced polygamous marriages of underage teenage girls are somehow founded upon the teachings of Joseph Smith, then read on. You are in for a surprise.

During the last year the LDS and FLDS denominations of Mormonism have made national headlines because of several issues involving sex: polygamy, same-sex marriage and civil rights for homosexual Americans.

In the Spring of 2008, state authorities raided the FLDS compound in Texas, taking over a hundred teens and children into protective custody because of allegations of sexual abuse of underage teenage girls.

In November of 2008 the passage of Proposition 8 in California took away the rights of homosexual Californians to marry—a civil right that the state Supreme Court had granted earlier that year. The success in passing Proposition 8 was due primarily to the political activity of the LDS Church. In the weeks that followed, political rallies by those in favor of same-sex unions were held in front of LDS Temples across the country—in much the same way that the LDS, in September and October, had organized political rallies across the state of California to demonstrate against same-sex unions.

This week it was revealed that the work of the LDS Church in stripping homosexual Americans of their civil rights continues. Using certain pages its official website (accessible only to currently active Church members, who are given a special code) the LDS Church is organizing its members in Illinois to campaign against efforts to established same-sex civil unions.

The LDS Church erroneously presents itself as the one and only “Mormon Church”—as the only institution divinely authorized to interpret the teachings of Joseph Smith—the First Mormon. As such the LDS renounces the FLDS Church as well as all other Mormon denomination—ranging from polygamous groups to the mainstream Protestant-like RLDS Church (now known as “The Community of Christ.”) In recent years LDS Church president, Gordon B. Hinckley, went so far as to say that “there is not such thing as a Fundamentalist Mormon”—despite the fact that in Utah (headquarters of the LDS and the FLDS Churches) there are over 40,000 Mormon polygamists.

Since the 1960’s, the LDS Church had presented itself as an ardent defender of “traditional marriage” and “traditional family values.” The Church has based its entire missionary program on promoting post-World War II, 1950’s mainstream American ideals regarding marriage, gender roles and family.

Because of this, the LDS Church not only denounces polygamy and same-sex marriage, but it continues to demonize homosexuals, and to insist that homosexuality is merely a “lifestyle choice”—this despite increasing scientific evidence proving that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, and that it can not be changed.

Cartoon of LDS President Spencer W. Kimball, flanked by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, attempting to "cure" two homosexual men

In the 1970 LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball (revered by the LDS as the prophet of God at the time) in his book “The Miracle of Forgiveness” lamented the fact that in many places homosexual was not longer a crime punishable by arrest and imprisonment; he wrote that for those who engaged in homosexual acts, it would have been better that if they had never been born.

Gay LDS Church member D.J. Thomas (above)
committed suicide in Arizona in 2000.

Since that time the suicide of numerous homosexual Latter-day Saints—distraught over their inability to change their sexual orientation—have been reported in the news.

Gay LDS Returned Missionary Stuart Matis committed
suicide on the lawn of an LDS Chapel

In 2000, faithful LDS Church member and returned missionary Stuart Matis shot himself through the head on the front lawn of the local LDS chapel in Santa Clara, California. Matis left a suicide note blaming the suicide on the conflict between his religion and his sexual orientation, a conflict that was accentuated by the battle over California's Proposition 22.

Russell Henderson (above) was an LDS Aaronic Priesthood

holder when he murdered Matthew Shepherd in 1998

Most famously, Russell Hendersen—one of the two young men who, in the 1998, murdered gay college student Matthew Shepherd—was LDS and ordained to the Church’s Aaronic Priesthood.

More recently, speeches and public rants given by church members who headed the Church’s campaign for Proposition 8 equated homosexuality with bestiality, incest and the sexual abuse of children. The Church declares that homosexuality is something that can be overcome through conversion, prayer, fasting and “obeying God’s commandments”—by which they mean the dictates of the current LDS Church authorities. The Church continues to demonize homosexuals—presenting them as sinister agents under the influence of the devil who are out to destroy the institution of the family.

Over the last two years, LDS Church members have been told by Church General Authorities (who are revered as being the sole representatives of God on earth) that they should forbid adult homosexual children and relatives to bring their partners into their homes. Their fear is that if LDS children or youth are allowed socialize with homosexual relatives and their partners, they will begin to see homosexuals as normal, ethical, happy individuals. More than any other religious denomination in the United States, the LDS Church continues to take increasingly drastic steps in stigmatizing homosexuals.

Utah Senator Chris Buttar

Just two weeks ago LDS Church members serving in the Utah state legislature showed every thing from indifference to vicious contempt when law-abiding homosexual Utahan presented a plea to state representatives to find some common ground for addressing the issue of same-sex civil unions. At the same time, Utah State Senator Chris Buttar (a devout LDS Church member--pictured above) said that gay and lesbian rights activists are "probably the greatest threat to America going down." He also asked "what is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that, because anything goes. So now you are moving toward a society that has no morals." Buttar also compared gay rights activists to Islamic radicals: "Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it's been taken over by the radical side. And the gays are totally taken over by the radical side."

TE LDS CHURCH AND SO-CALLED “TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”

Since the 1940’s, the LDS Church has gone out of its way to distance itself from its polygamous past. LDS General Authorities, historians and apologists never miss an opportunity to declare that the LDS ended polygamy in 1890 (actually it was 1904), and that it has excommunicated any member even preaching the doctrine since that time. (Actually such excommunications didn’t begin until 1907. They were aimed only at Church members who entered polygamous marriages after 1904.)

Heber J. Grant, who died in 1945, was the last

polygamist to serve as President of the LDS Church

The LDS Church does not advertise the fact that until 1945 every LDS Church president (each regarded as an infallible prophet) was a practicing polygamist. President Heber J, Grant, who died in 1945, was actually the Church’s last polygamist prophet with three wives. Into the 1950’s there were elderly LDS Church members who were polygamists. This means that the LDS Church has only been polygamist-free for about 50 years. This is quite a different picture than the one painted by the LDS Church in it’s official announcements, literature and press releases—all of which insist that the Church had been polygamist-free for nearly 120 years.

Even today LDS Church members, in LDS Temples, can be sealed (married) to more than one spouse “for time and all eternity.” This means that even though a Latter-day Saint can only have one wife at a time in this life, the Church continues to teach that in eternity (in “heaven”) he will be married to all the women to whom the Church has sealed him in their wedding ceremonies. Many modern LDS men—including quite a few modern General Authorities of the Church—believe that they will be polygamists in heaven.

Despite its current theology, the LDS Church continues its work to deny homosexual Americans of their civil rights—all in the name of defending “traditional marriage.”

THE LDS CHURCH & THE FLDS CHURCH HAVE THE EXACT SAME THEOLOGY REGARDING SEX

On the surface, the politically right-wing LDS Church and the radical FLDS Church seem worlds apart; like two completely different religions.

This is not the case.

Regarding the purpose of marriage and sex, the LDS and FLDS Churches embrace the exact same theology. The LDS Church opposes civil rights for homosexuals on the same theological ground that the FLDS Church has sanctioned polygamous marriage to underage teenage girls.

THE LDS/FLDS THEOLOGY OF SEX

Both the LDS and FLDS Church share a common theology regarding sex.

According the LDS and FLDS doctrine, God commands that all human beings must “be married for time and all eternity” in order to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven—Celestial Glory. A human being who reaches this degree of glory will become a God or Goddess.

As Gods and Goddesses, they will sexually produce spirits for future human beings who will be born on futures worlds that will be created. In LDS and FLDS theology, not only marriage, but heterosexual sexual intercourse itself and reproduction are pre-requisites for Godhood. According to LDS theology Godhood itself is the ability to engage in heterosexual sexual intercourse and reproduction for all eternity.

Since 1852 the LDS Church has taught that God (Our Heavenly Father) is married, and that our spirits (the part of us that will live on after death) were begotten through God’s sexual union with a Heavenly Mother. Until recent decades LDS Church authorities taught that God was a polygamist with many Goddess wives. Though the LDS Church no longer preaches this doctrine publicly—as does the FLDS Church--neither has it officially denied the doctrine.

In its recent statement concerning “the divine institution of marriage” the LDS explicitly has said that love is not the basis of marriage. Instead the Church insists that the purpose of marriage is reproduction and caring for children. Likewise the FLDS Church insists that the basis of marriage is not love. These views are a continuation of the LDS Church’s teaching in the late 1800s, which was usually articulated in this way: “We consider [romantic] love to be a false emotion.”

Both the LDS and FLDS Churches teach that marriage is commanded by God; that to fulfill God’s purpose for humanity (that is, to become Gods ourselves) every human being must get married and reproduce—in this life if possible, but most certainly in heaven. One’s future power and glory as a God will be based on the number of “spirit children” one has in eternity.

In the theology of the LDS and FLDS, heterosexual sex is the means by which one becomes like God and enters into heaven’s highest degree of glory.

No wonder the LDS Church is so vicious in its attacks on homosexuality.

BUT DID JOSEPH SMITH—MORMONISM’S FOUNDER—ACTUALLY TEACH THESE IDEAS?

The LDS and FLDS Churches each claim to be “the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth.” Each claims to perfectly teach the doctrines of Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith.

But did Joseph Smith actually teach the doctrines described above?

Did Joseph Smith teach that our spirits were begotten by Our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?

Did Joseph Smith teach that one became like God through getting married?

Did Joseph teach that human beings, once they became Gods, would sexually begat spirit children for future worlds?

The answers to all three of these questions is NO.

These ideas are found nowhere in Mormon scripture—not in the Bible, “The Book of Mormon,” The Doctrine and Covenants, or “The Pearl of Great Price.”

These ideas can not be found in any of Joseph Smith’s letters, journals or sermons.

How is it that the LDS and FLDS Churches—the two institutions that claim to teach the doctrines of Joseph Smith—base their entire theology on ideas that Joseph never taught?

Joseph Smith--the founder of Mormonism--in 1843

And if Joseph Smith never taught these doctrines, how should devout Mormons who happen to be homosexual react to the LDS and FLDS Churches?

Can one be a Mormon without being a member the LDS or FLDS Church?

WHERE DID THESE IDEAS COME FROM?

Where did these ideas—the central concepts of LDS/FLDS theology—come from? Who came up with these ideas? If Joseph Smith didn’t teach these ideas, then who did?

THAT will be the focus of our next installment.

We will reveal exactly who invented this theology of married Gods and Goddesses sexually begetting the spirits of human beings.

We will reveal why, in 1852, Brigham Young and the LDS Church embraced these ideas.

We will then reveal exactly what Joseph Smith DID teach regarding the origin of the human spirit and the process by which human beings might progress to Godhood.

We will then reveal Joseph Smith’s vision of humanity once it achieved Godhood—a vision that he declared publicly in plain language—and a vision which the LDS Church ignored in the 1850s and then began to suppress and deny in the 20th century.

We will show that the actual teachings of Joseph Smith in his famous last sermon—the King Follett Discourse—actually undermine the LDS and FLDS theology regarding human sexuality. In light of this we will ask you to consider the following: When one considers what Joseph Smith actually did teach at the end of his life, is it possible that, strictly speaking, the modern day LDS Church isn’t even “Mormon?”

Finally we will present the Reform Mormon theology of human progress, marriage and sexuality.

This theology—founded firmly upon the principles of Joseph Smith’s unfinished Nauvoo-era reformation of Mormonism—is one that embraces all people— regardless of their sexual orientation. It reveres the worth of the individual, human freedom, intellectual curiosity, human progress and achievement. It exalts in human joy, and it embraces humanity and life on earth in a spirit of generosity and hope.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Is this all new to you? Do you find these ideas exciting…or revolting….or inspiring? Feel free to share your ideas, your insights and your questions with us. Email us at: reformmormons@aol.com

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

2008-12-31T14:10:00.000-08:00

"Watch Night" was a religious celebration of New Year that began with the Moravians--a small European Christian sect of the 18th century who, among other things, emphasized the feminine aspects of God's character.

In the first decades of the 1700's, John Wesley began worshipping with Moravians, and his experiences with them inspired him to begin the movement now known as Methodism. Methodists took the Moravian traditon of "Watch Night" and made it a continuing part of Methodist tradition.(Just as Wesley had his first deeply felt religious experiences while attending Moravian worship services, so Joseph Smith--the First Mormon--has his first deeply felt religous experiences when in his mid-teens he began worshipping with Methodists in Palmyra, New York.)

"Watch Night" was celebrated on New Year's Eve, and it focused on the spiritual progress one made during the past year while encouraging one to recommit to personal spiritual growth in the coming year.

To celebrate "Watch Night," John Wesley's bother, Charles Wesley, composed a number of hymns. (Charles Wesley was one of world's greatest writers of hymns, and many of his hymns have become a traditional part of Mormon worship--appearing the hymnals of most Mormon denominations. Charles' most famous hymn is "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.")

The following hymn is one of Charles Wesley's "Watch Night" hymns. It is printed here in the spirit of the holiday season:

"Come, let us anew our journey pursue,
Roll round with the year,
And never stand still till the Master appear,
His adorable will let us gladly fulfill,
And our talents improve,
By the patience of hope, and the labor of love,
By the patience of hope, and the labor of love.

"Our life is a dream; our time, as a stream,
Glides swiftly away,
And the fugitive moment refuses to stay,
The arrow is flown, the moment is gone;
The millennial year
Rushes on to our view, and eternity's here,
Rushes on to our view, and eternity's here.

"O that each in the day of His coming may say,
'I have fought my way through;
I have finished the work Thou didst give me to do!'
O that each from his Lord may receive the glad word,'
Well and faithfully done!
Enter into My joy, and sit down on My throne!''
Enter into My joy, and sit down on My throne!' '

--Charles Wesley (Hymn 217 in the current LDS Hymnal)

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-21T12:32:00.000-08:00

"I Heard The Bells On

Christmas Day"

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet the words repeat

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

I thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along the unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head:

"There is no peace on earth," I said,

"For hate is strong and mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good will to men."

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;

The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,

With peace on earth, good will to men."

Till, ringing singing, on its way,

The world revolved from night to day,

A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,

Of peace on earth, good will to men!

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 1867

MERRY CHRISTMAS &

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

WHAT ALL OF US KNOW: Exploring the Mormon Paradigm--Lesson 2

2008-11-01T14:11:00.000-07:00

WHAT YOU KNOW CAN SAVE YOU

“Knowledge is what saves a man.”—Joseph Smith, the First Mormon

Knowledge is what saves us, while ignorance or a denial of the facts, of truth, usually puts us at risk and peril.

The person who hasn’t learned how to swim is in danger of drowning; the person who knows how to swim is less at risk should she suddenly be caught in a flood or undertow.

The person who knows how to plant, cultivate and harvest—who knows how to hunt or fish is better equipped to avoid starvation. Without this knowledge, human survival is threatened.

Someone who discovers a tumor on his body but then continues on in denial of this knowledge, never seeking the advice of a physician puts his life at risk.

Ignorance of the facts—be it willful or unintentional—threatens human life, human progress and happiness.

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

All religions claim to possess “the truth.” Most religions claim that if one will come to “know” the “truth” that they teach, one will be saved—from the woes of this life, or from damnation, suffering or loss in an afterlife.

The problem is that many of the “truths” proclaimed by most religions are principles that are supported by little if any objective evidence. Many of these so-called truths are faith-based principles that fly in the face of objective reality. Because of this, the type of “knowledge” that these religions champion requires a huge amount of blind-faith, denial of rational thought, compartmentalized thinking and self-deception.

Traditionally religions have issued broad declarations of a supposed truth regarding the nature of reality, and then have encouraged believers to deny or explain away any evidence that contradicts that declaration. For instances, a Biblical fundamentalist will declare that the heavens and the earth were created, a mere six or seven thousand years ago, in six days; that at that time God created human beings in their present form. A fundamentalist may claim to “know” that this is true. But when pressed such “knowledge” ends up be described as “spiritual” or mystical in nature; and this “knowledge” is maintained by denying and ignoring all of the physical evidence (and the scientific theories based upon that physical evidence) that the earth is, in fact, tens of billions of years old, and that all species of biological life (including humans) evolved from less complex life forms.

In short, traditional religions—while claiming to champion knowledge and truth—actually end up devaluing both.

The Mormon Paradigm is different.

Knowledge and truth are deeply revered by Reform Mormons—in fact, Mormon scripture equates the two concepts: “Truth is a knowledge of things as they are, and of as they were and of as they are to come.” (The Doctrine & Covenants 93:24)

In the Mormon Paradigm truth IS a knowledge of the facts regarding existence. The Mormon definition of “truth” is the same definition used by secular thinkers and rationalists. For Reform Mormons blind faith, mysticism and a belief in the supernatural are not required to understand truth. In fact from the Reform Mormon perspective, blind faith, mysticism and devotion to supernaturalism can actually undermine one’s knowledge of the truth.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

Rather than beginning with broad declarations concerning the nature of God or the supernatural, the Mormon Paradigm begins by examining those things that ALL human beings can know objectively by virtue of their physical senses. The physical senses are the means by which human beings obtain information concerning one another and of the world in which we live, and rational thought is the means by which humans understand that information. As Thomas Jefferson declared, “Every man’s own reason must be his oracle.”

For a religion to be valuable to human beings—for that religion to inspire, encourage and cultivate human progress and joy—it cannot preach faith-based ideas that contradict what we all know to be objectively true by virtue of our physical senses.

So let’s begin our examination of the Mormon Paradigm by considering first those things that we can all agree are true—those facts upon which all of us (followers of a particular religion and atheists alike) can agree.

WHAT WE ALL KNOW

Consider the following ideas, taken from a classic work of Mormon theology: B. H. Roberts’ monumental study, “The Truth, The Way, The Life.”

“Man knows himself as existing. He is a self-conscious entity. He knows himself as existing by many manifestations. He knows himself as seeing, hearing, tasting; as feeling…But most of all in all these manifestations through which man attains self-consciousness, he knows himself as thinking: “I think, therefore I am.”…One thinks, and one acts; therefore one is.

“And not only is one conscious of one’s self, but he is also conscious of other selves, of other men, such as he himself is, in the main; with the same kind of qualities which he himself possesses…”

“One’s knowledge is not limited to this consciousness of self and other selves—to the likeness and the difference between himself and other selves. He is conscious of the existence of a large external world. He knows the existence of earth; land, water, and air. He knows the earth is divided into islands and continents, seas and oceans, rivers and bays. He knows the existence of the town or hamlet or countryside where he was born…he knows, at least by report, of the great centers of world population….”

“Man knows objects by form, texture, and quality…. [But] man’s knowledge [is not] confined to material things. He is conscious of qualities, even of intellectual and moral qualities….He has a mind capable through the imagination of creating worlds and peopling them with creatures of his mind…”

“Man knows himself as competent to form normal judgments and realizes self-responsibility for his actions…He is capable of forming comparisons between moral states and conditions…

“…passing things in review and pronouncing judgment upon them as good or evil, better or worse, man becomes conscious of a very wonderful power that he recognizes as existing within himself: the consciousness of will; the power of self-determination; the power to choose which of two or more courses he will take. He can do as he wills to do. While there may be persuasive influences drawing him to one side or the other, yet he is conscious of the power to determine what his action shall be. He recognizes the truth avowed by the English poet [Shakespeare], “It is in our Wills that we are thus or thus.” This is not to assert man’s powers to do impossible things, especially impossible physical things…I have had in mind rather the fact of free moral agency, man’s power to recognize good and evil by their effects in human life, and his power to choose between them—to choose which he will follow.”

(B. H. Roberts’ “The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology.” 2nd edition, pp. 29-32)

(Above: B. H. Roberts--Mormon Theologian)

In coming lessons we will explore the Mormon Paradigm building upon the following facts:

--I think, therefore I am.

--I know that I share a common nature with all other human beings; in nature, we are all alike.

--I know that I exist in a physical realm. I gain my knowledge of world around me by virtue of my physical senses.

--As a human being, I have a level of natural intelligence that allows me to remember, to imagine, to think in terms of good and bad, to think abstractly, to make value judgments.

--Because as a human being I can make value judgments, by nature I am free to make choices; I am free to act on my own judgments.

--Because I am free to act based on my value judgments and choices, I must take responsibility for my actions and accept their consequences.

SOME MEMORABLE QUOTES

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”—Jesus of Nazareth (John 8:32)

"Truth is a knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”—Joseph Smith (Doctrine & Covenants 93:24)

“Knowledge is what saves a man.”—Joseph Smith (The King Follett Discourse)

“Every man’s own reason must be his oracle…[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth.”—Thomas Jefferson

“I think, therefore I am.”—Descartes (from “Discourse on Method”)

“It is in our Wills that we are thus or thus.” –Shakespeare (paraphrase of “Othello 1.3.319-20)

(Left: A recently discovered 1843 photograph, reported to be the only photograph ever taken of Joseph Smith--the founder of Mormonism.)

GET INVOLVED IN OUR DISCUSSION

Do you have any thoughts on this lesson---any ideas you’d like to share? If so, we will post them here. Email to us at: Reformmormons@aol.com

In consideration of space and clarity, we reserve the right to edit any email we may post. All view points will be welcomed.

PARADIGM SHIFT: Mormonism's New Paradigm

2008-10-26T14:47:00.000-07:00

When it comes to religion, the world is in midst of a monumental paradigm shift.

There is an overall concept regarding the nature of God, the universe and man that most people have accepted without question for nearly 2,000 years. If someone is religious, it’s assumed that he or she accepts that overall concept—that paradigm.

It seems virtually impossible to have any discussion on religion without having everyone involved in the discussion accepting the following ideas:

1. There is only one all-powerful, all-knowing God who created and controls all things. Some may define God in personal terms: as a Father or Mother, as an Almighty Lord or Heavenly King, as Jesus Christ or some other human figure from history or myth. Others may envision God as an impersonal Force, Power or Spirit. Regardless of how God is defined, most people tend to believe that there is but one God who is above all things that exist, who is the “First Cause” of all that exits.

2. The cosmos, the universe—everything that exists—has a definite beginning. Some may believe that the universe was created by God in seven literal days. Others may believe the earth was created in seven thousand years, or over the course of billions of years. Some think that existence began with a Big Bang. Despite differences regarding how existence began, all seem to agree that existence did have a beginning; that at some point nothing existed, and then existence itself began.

3. Human nature is inherently conflicted. Many believe that the physical body with its appetites and desires is in conflict with an immaterial spirit or soul; they may talk about “Original Sin,” and humanity’s inherent “sinful nature.” Others think of the conflict in terms of emotion versus reason, the heart versus the head. Still others consider the concept of the individual, as well a person’s self-interest or selfishness to be in conflict with the “greater good” of the masses and of selflessness and sacrifice. Still others pit the human tendency to question things and to demand evidence or proof against the human ability to accept ideas on the basis of faith alone. Regardless of exactly how the conflict is described, all religions tend to view human nature as inherently conflicted and therefore in need of change, redemption or salvation; human nature is defected and one particular religion has the remedy.

4. There is an external authority—separate from, and at times at odds with human reason, knowledge and understanding—which determines was it right and wrong, true and false, good and evil. Some believe that authority is God Himself, speaking or issuing commandments through a certain book of scripture, a particular church or religious organization, a certain group of human beings or a particular religious leader such as a pope, a guru, a priest or prophet. To cling to one’s own ideas (as rational at they may seem) instead of accepting whatever revelations or commandments may come through these sources is to reject not only God himself, but the very foundation of morality. Others may reject such visible symbols of external authority as scripture, churches and religious leaders—instead teaching that man must put aside his rational mind, his demands for evidence and proofs, and the conclusion he has reached regarding the nature of things; man must forsake his ego—his sense of self—and open himself up to God, to the Light, the Source of all things, the Spirit of the Universe, etc. Only through submitting to a mystical inner communion with the Divine, can man “be freed” from the pain, suffering and evils of life on earth. Regardless of how submission to an external authority is envisioned, the over-all idea is the same: ethics, morality, piety, virtue, holiness and righteousness consist of putting aside one’s rational mind, one’s own ideas of things, and submitting to an external authority.

5. After this life a person’s spirit receives some sort of eternal reward or punishment. Some believe this reward or punishment is the result of one’s deeds. Others believe it is determined by the religion one embraced in life, the God in which one had faith, or the church to which one belonged. Still others believe that one’s eternal reward or punishment is determined by the type of person one became as a result of how one lived his or her life. Regardless of how the reward or punishment is determined, the overall belief of most people is that after this life, one’s spirit passes on to am eternally fixed and static state. One is either saved or damned; one goes to either heaven or hell; one achieves nirvana or one does not.

For nearly two thousands years, the world has tended to accept (or to at least give lip-service and deference) to these ideas—to this religious paradigm.

However, over the past six hundred years (beginning with the Renaissance in Europe), individuals have arisen who have questioned aspects of this paradigm. Science and medicine have brought forth new knowledge regarding the universe, nature, the human mind and body.

The scripture and sacred writing of most religions came forth hundreds or thousands of years ago when people in their ignorance believed the earth was the center of the universe around which the sun, moon and starts revolved.

It was assumed that disease and natural disasters were sent by Gods, angels or devils to punish, chastise or humble disobedient and impure human beings. There was no concept of germs, bacteria or viruses; no understanding weather patterns or geological forces at work beneath the surface of the earth. People had no concept of impersonal natural forces causing events or spreading disease. If a disaster struck an area, if a plague or disease ravaged a particular community, then a God or supernatural being must have caused these things to happen.

In short, most scripture and religion came hundreds or thousands of years ago before the human race had developed an understanding of nature itself.

Over the past six hundred years that has changed.

We know now that the world is round, not flat.

We know that the earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, we now know that the universe actually has no center at all, but seemly extends onward and outward in all directions eternally.

We know that disasters and disease are the result of impersonal forces in nature. When wondering if a storm or earthquake might strike a particular area, people no longer turn to shamans, holy men and seers; they consult the scientists who study these natural phenomonans. Where ancient might have turned to oracles or priests for prophecies concerning coming storms or calamities, we now turn to TV meteorologists and weather reporters.

When a loved one is taken ill, witch-doctors and faith-healers are not consulted; most people don’t sacrifice animals on an altar in an attempt to convince gods to heal them. Again scientists (in this case, medical doctors) are called for advice.

When someone suffers from depression or emotional disorders, most people no longer hire an exorcist, or recite magical incantations in an attempt to drive away demons and evil spirits. Instead they turn to medical experts such as psychologists or psychiatrists.

In the modern Western world most people, regardless of how much they might believe in one all-powerful God, still maintain that individual human beings have certain natural rights upon which not even religion may infringe. Most modern nations have made an attempt to separate the powers of organized religion from the power of government. Whereas the ancient people who brought forth the world’s scriptures and religion had no concept of the individual have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of personal happiness, most modern people consider these ideas to be sacred.

Whereas ancient people believed that gods had every right to demand that an individual lay down his or her life, modern people consider human sacrifice to be an abomination. (For Jews and Christians, one of the most troubling stories in their Bible is the account of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.) Ancients believed it was honorable and right to execute heretics, adulterers, prostitutes, and children who dishonored their parents and families. While many modern people may consider heresy, adultery and prostitution sinful—even criminal in some cases—most would never assume that these things warranted public execution.

Despite all the progress achieved in our understanding of the universe and in our respect for human nature, most people still cling to an ancient religious paradigm—a religious “scheme of things”—that is at odds with nearly every aspect of modern life.

In short, we are in the middle of a monumental paradigm shift when it comes to religion.

That paradigm shift is the defining aspect of our age. One needn’t look any further than the morning paper, the evening news or current political and military events:

—The so-called “War on Terrorism” being waged by the United States and her allies is not so much a war on terrorism in general but a war against theocratic forces from Islamic nations who condone violence in order to defeat “infidels” and establish submission to what they believe is God’s will.

—In the United States, many Christian fundamentalists decry “secular humanism,” and insist that there should be no “wall of separation between church and state.” They insist that the United States was founded on “Biblical principles” and that such “sins” as homosexuality, pornography, no-fault divorce and abortion should either be declared illegal or in some way stigmatized by the law.

—Religious fundamentalists campaign to have ‘Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” (the doctrine that God created and designed the universe) taught in public school science classes along side the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.

—While a greater portion of the United States population than ever before defines itself as Evangelical Christian (a high as 32% according to some polls), and while this segment of the population influences politics and government more profoundly than at any time in American history, these same Evangelicals nevertheless continue to see themselves as a persecuted minority whose rights are being attacked.

—Some of the best-selling books of the past few years have been in-depth defenses of atheism and attacks on traditional ideas of faith and believe. Such books as “God Is Not Great,” “The End of Faith” and “The God Delusion” are the works of some of the most respected thinkers of our day—and they have all become best-sellers. On the other hand, the best-seller lists also have included works such as “The Purpose Drive Life” (by a conservative Christian minister) and the current best-seller “The Shack” (written by a liberal, non-traditional Christian theologian.)

—For decades now people who have an intense interest in religion and in ethics but who are not fundamentalists describe themselves as being “spiritual” as opposed to “religious.” Why? Because the majority of the population tends to view organized religion negatively; they equate it with fundamentalism, legalism, self-righteousness and bigotry. Despite this negative view of organized religion, these self-described “spiritual” people embrace many of the core ethics of traditional religion: love of neighbor, caring for those who need, defending the oppressed and outcast. And sadly enough, many of those who are most vocal in attacking the “bleed-heart liberalism” of these “spiritual” people are those who define themselves as “religious.”

Why is there some much contention over religion? Why the discord?

Certainly the history of religion generally is in large part a record of contention, discord and violence. But in our day something has changed.
The human race has simply reached a point in its progression where the religious paradigm of the past four two to four thousand years can no longer be taken literally; the paradigm—what we have been told we should believe about the nature of reality—is simply out of harmony with what we actually know about the nature of reality.

Reform Mormons embrace a new religious paradigm—what we call “the Mormon Paradigm.”

The Mormon Paradigm completely rejects the following ideas found in the traditional religious paradigm:

1. The Mormon Paradigm rejects the belief that there is but one all-powerful, all-knowing God. Its understanding of God’s nature is completely different from that of all other religions.

2. The Mormon Paradigm rejects the belief that the universe and the existence ever had a beginning. It completely rejects the belief that there was ever an “in the beginning.” It rejects the doctrine of Creationism.

3. The Mormon Paradigm rejects the belief that human nature is inherently fallen, sinful or conflicted. An idea such as Original Sin has no place whatsoever in the Mormon Paradigm.

4. The Mormon Paradigm rejects the belief that morality consists of obeying or submitting to any external authority such as a book of scripture, a set of laws, the commands of a religious leader, the decrees of a religious organization or tradition, or an external spirit, power or force.

5. While believing that everything and everyone has an eternal aspect, the Reform Mormon Paradigm completely rejects the belief in a static life after death—either in heaven, hell or limbo.

From now on, this blog will explore that Mormon Paradigm in depth. We will explore how the Mormon Paradigm views things from the tiniest microscopic element to nature of God—and everything in between.

Why?

Because if one’s religious beliefs concerning any aspect of reality are out of harmony with what is known about reality (known by virtue of one’s senses, by virtue of objective physical proof, by virtue of sound reasoning), eventually trouble will be the result. If one’s ideals are out of harmony with objective reality and with human nature as it now is then eventually—in the name of those so-called ideals—human nature (and human beings) will come under attack.

Recently agnostic, religious skeptic and comedian Bill Maher said, “My theory is, if there is a God, He needs a break….we don’t know if He exits. But if there is a God, He is very put upon. He wants someone to debunk. Leave Him alone already. Keep the pressure off of Him.” ( Quoted in “USA Today,” October 6, 2008)

No one can argue that the religious paradigms of the past have inspired injustice, tyranny and violence in the name of God. God has gotten a “bad rap”—the most offensive being from those who have claimed to be his most devout followers and defenders.

To use the words of Maher, the New Religious Paradigm of Reform Mormonism “debunks” the false ideas, the irrational theologies and the silly superstitions that traditional religions have put forth regarding the nature of God, man and the universe.

And beyond this, Reform Mormonism’s New Religious Paradigm puts forth a theology a mythology, a philosophy and a set of ethics and values—the purpose of which is to exalt human beings and human life here on earth.

FREEDOM

2008-07-03T15:44:00.000-07:00

Concerning what is sacred, often I’m alone:
Set apart from other men; a sect all my own.
Pious men of good report assume that I’ve no God
Because the path I’ve chosen is not the path they trod.

But I have a god—though not the God of most:
No distant king, or vengeful Judge, or angry Lord of Hosts.

The glory of my God is everywhere revealed,
In burning sun, in languid moon, in heaven, sea and field;
In every law which keeps the earth and all things in it bound
The mind of my most gracious God is waiting to be found.

And man—of all God’s creatures—can learn his grand design,
so in the name of nature’s god, I hold this truth divine:

Free each man was born,
And free each man remains
Though he’s beaten and he’s torn,
And weighted down in chains.
In the strength of his convictions
He can stand before the crowd:
His heart beats free
And his head remains unbowed.

For there’s something in a man
That should not be denied—
Though it’s often sacrificed,
And for its sake men have died,
Paying the ultimate price.

Let persecutions come,
Let calumny defame;
The cause of human liberty
Flows onward unrestrained;
Should other voices fail,
I will sing strong and loud:
“My heart beats free!
My head remains unbowed!”

Classical Mormon theology puts forth a radical doctrine of human Free Agency: the mind of man is eternal, uncreated and co-equal with God. Freedom is not a gift from to humans; it is not the creation of God. Rather freedom is inherent in the very nature of man.

Because of this, Reform Mormons value the freedom, independence and individual agency.

Share your thoughts on freedom with our readers. Email them to: reformmormons@aol.com

REFORM MORMONISM & MARRIAGE

2008-06-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

This past week California joined Massachusetts in legalizing same-sex marriage. Two weeks ago the governor of New York ordered all stage agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and nations. So it is that in the past week legally recognized same-sex marriages have become a reality in three of the most populated states in the U.S. At the same time this week, new scientific findings were released by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden on differences in the size and structure of the human brain in heterosexual and homosexual subjects. The findings offer yet more medical evidence that sexual orientation is not the product of personal choice or social influences but is an inborn biological trait, as immutable as height, gender or race.

Eventually all religions that have taken a stand against homosexuality and same-sex marriage will have to address the issues raised by these developments in law and science. In response to these events, this week’s Gospel Doctrine Lesson will address the Reform Mormon view on the meaning and purpose of marriage.

During the last half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, Utah Mormons found themselves, politically and socially, in the same situation that activists for same-sex marriage now find themselves: attacked for being “anti-family,” for being enemies to “traditional marriage,” and for being a threat to everything from Christianity to Western civilization itself. (Given its own history, it is ironic—to say the very least—that the LDS Church is one of U.S.’s most vocal and active agitators against same-sex marriage. Days after the California Supreme Court’s decision, it was the state of Utah that officially petitioned California, asking that no such marriages be performed until after an amendment to the state’s constitution—overturning the court’s decision—could be voted upon in the upcoming election.)

Almost from its inception, Mormonism diverged from popular and traditional views on marriage. In 1831, at a time when most white racism against Native Americans was nearly universal, Joseph Smith encouraged Mormons to form “matrimonial alliances” with the Indians of the American mid-west. By the mid-1830’s, Mormons were being accused of practicing polygamy. In the early 1840’s as the strict sexual mores of the Victorian Age were being embraced by Americans, Mormons were publishing religious tracts denouncing “monkish” attitudes toward human sexuality and teaching as a theological principle that sex was essential to human joy and happiness. In the early 1850’s, Mormons in the Territory of Utah instituted the most liberal divorce laws in the United States. (It would take the rest of the nation more than a century to catch up with the pioneer Mormon practice of no-fault divorce.)

With this history in mind, we will explore the Reform Mormon concept of marriage.

"It is not good that man be alone, for we are not alone." (Eloheim speaking to Jehovah in the pre-1970 LDS Endowment ceremony)

As Christianity was the official religion of Europe for over a thousand years, it makes perfect sense that the ideas of most Westerners regarding marriage descend from the Biblical creation myths. Mormonism itself evolved from 19th century American popular religion which was rooted in the Biblical traditions.

Biblical fundamentalists, Evangelicals and LDS Mormons currently argue that reproduction and the rearing of children is the main purpose of marriage. Yet none of these groups discouraged marriage among infertile or elderly heterosexual couples, or among young, fertile heterosexual couples who chose not to have children. They argue that because these couples could biologically reproduce if they were fertile, younger or disposed toward parenting, they should be allowed—even encouraged—to marry.

The idea that reproduction is the main purpose of marriage (indeed, of sex itself) comes from a literal reading the first creation myth—the Israelite creation myth found in he first chapter of Genesis.

According to the Israelite creation myth, God (Elohiem) creates the heavens and earth in six days. On the sixth day, after creating all forms of sea-life and animal life on earth, God last of all creates a nameless man and woman in his image. (Nowhere does the Israelite myth explain how God creates man and woman; there is no mention of creating them out of the dust of the earth.) God blesses the man and woman, commanding them to “be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth,” and to exercise dominion over all forms of life on earth. (See Genesis 1:26-31)

But a completely different creation myth—this one the product of another culture altogether, the Judean culture of southern Israel—begins in chapter 2, verse 4 and continues through chapter 4 of Genesis. Strangely enough, Evangelicals, fundamentalists and the LDS usually quote (or misquote) the Judean myth—and blend elements of it with elements of the Israelite myth, the end result being that they distort what the Judean myth actually says.

The differences between the Israelite and Judean creation myths is striking—and once the differences have been noticed, one may be astounded that so many Evangelicals, Christian fundamentalists and LDS Mormons remain ignorant of that fact that the opening chapters of Genesis actually contain two different and contradictory stories.

The Judean creation myth is filled with details—familiar to most Christians, Jews and Mormons—that are not found in the Israelite creation myth. Among these important details is that the Judean myth gives actual names to all the characters. In the Judean myth the God who forms the earth has a personal name: Yahweh—which has traditionally been translated into English as “the LORD God.” Also the man and woman—who are nameless in the Israelite creation myth—are here given the names of Adam and Eve.

Also striking—and most important—is the plot of the story told: Yahweh makes the heaven and the earth, but no time frame is given for this. Nowhere is a period of seven days—or of seven time periods of any duration—given.

Rather than creating man and woman last and at the same time (as does the God of the Israelite myth), Yahweh makes the man—Adam—first before making any other form of life. After forming Adam from the dust of the earth, Yahweh breathes the breath of life into his nostrils so that Adam becomes a living soul and the very first life form on the planet earth. In contrast to the order even of events in the Israelite myth, Yahweh causes all plant life to grow out of the ground, and plants “a garden eastward in Eden” after the appearance of man on earth (See Genesis 2:4-15) (It should also be pointed out that the Garden of Eden plays no part whatsoever in the Israelite creation myth.)

At this point the only living things on earth are the plants and one lone man. Yahweh declares, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

The phrase “an help meet for him” is usually misquoted as “a helpmate for him.” However the word “helpmate: and the phrase “an help meet for him” have two very different meanings. “Helpmate” means simply spouse. But “an help meet for him” means “a helper worthy of, or equal to him.”

What happens next in the Judean myth is surprisingly. In order to make “a helper worthy of, and equal to” Adam, Yahweh forms every fowl of the air and every beast of the field out of the ground. Yahweh then brings these potential helpers “worthy of and equal to Adam” to Adam so that he (Adam) can give them names. (See Genesis 2:18-20)

Birds and the beasts are Yahweh’s first attempt to make for Adam a “helper worthy of and equal to him?”

For the millions of people who have misinterpreted Genesis by using the word “helpmate” (spouse), this bit of the Judean myth could be troubling to say the least. If Yahweh’s intention was to make a sexual partner (a “helpmate,” a spouse) for Adam, why did He form birds and “the beasts of the fields?” What are we to make of this portion of the story—and of Yahweh’s apparent ignorance of the biological difference between a human male and say an eagle or a horse? (If one wanted to be facetious and outrage fundamentalists one could suggest that Yahweh first intended Adam to choose a bird or a beast as his sexual partner—that the Lord original intent was that bestiality be the sexual norm for humans. To suggest such a thing, however, one must accept the fundamentalist’s mistranslation of “help meet” as “helpmate.”)

Back to the second chapter of Genesis: Adam names all the birds and beast but alas, among all these newly formed life forms “there was not found a help meet for him.” (Genesis 2: 20) In other words, Adam became acquainted with the animals of earth, but impressive as many of these species were, he found that none of them were equal to him.

So next Yahweh causes a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, take from his side a rib and from that forms a woman—Eve. When Adam is introduced to Eve, he recognizes her as “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” (Genesis 2:23) Adam recognizes that Eve is like him; that they share a common biological nature.

What happens next? Does Yahweh command Adam and Eve to reproduce and multiply?
One would assume so if one listens to Evangelicals, Fundamentalist and LDS Mormons tell the story.

But this is not the case at all. In fact, reproduction is not mentioned until the fourth chapter of Genesis—after Adam and Eve eat the fruit of Knowledge, leave the Garden of Eden and are living on their own in the outside world.

Instead the next two verses of the Judean myth sum up the entire meaning of the story:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave into his wife; and they shall be one flesh. And they were naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:23)

The central idea being explored in the myth is not reproduction but companionship, the union of two humans and intimacy.

There is a social stereotype (surely offensive to cat and animal lovers) of “the cat lover.” This stereotype would be the woman or man who has never known romantic love—who, in fact, has no close friends or relations, and lives alone in an apartment full of cats. Most people assume that a person who does not share his or he life intimately with another human, but instead builds a life around relationships with pets is someone to be pitied.

Why is this?

Because most people realize that as loveable and as affectionate as an animal may be, such a relationship is in no way comparable to an intimate, loving relationship with another human being.

Mormon scripture declares “the glory of God is intelligence.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:36)

Human intelligence is of high order than animal intelligence. It is because of the nature of human intelligence, that we humans can even conceive of abstractions such as “love,” “hate,” “alone,” “together,” “me,” and “you.” These abstractions—universal to all human beings regardless of time, location, nationality, race or creed—form the foundation of all human relationships.

Regardless of the intelligence of other species, there is no evidence whatsoever than any other known life form on earth can consciously hold these abstractions in mind, act upon them, communicate them and react emotionally to them in the way as do humans. The affection of a pet for its owner is of a different nature than the love of one human for another because the intelligence of a pet is of a different nature than the intelligence of a human being.

Other species mate, reproduce, nurture their young, then leave their offspring to fend for themselves—before moving on to repeat the cycle again and again until their bodies age past the point of being able to reproduce.

But this is not the case with human beings.

We approach relationships (or run from them) with a keen sense of ourselves and of others as intelligent individuals. We are constantly observing and judging one another—not just on the basis of fertility or strength, but on the basis of higher abstractions such as kindness, cruelty, goodness, evil, justice and injustice. To borrow the symbolism of Genesis, these concepts—which only a highly intelligent life form can fully process—are the ground and the dust from which our emotions are formed. Among these emotions are those emotions related to sexual arousal. Art historian Camille Paglia has written that “sex is where nature and civilization intersect.” Regardless of how “animalistic” one might label a particular sexual act, sex for humans will always have a profoundly psychological and emotional dimension—and therefore a spiritual and ethical dimension—that transcends the reproductive role that sex plays in other species.

“…intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence…” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:40) can

When Adam is introduced to Eve in the Judean myth, he recognizes her as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. But a much deeper recognition seems inherent in this poetry.

Adam recognizes that here is another being who shares his level of intelligence. Here is another being who perceives him using the same processes through which he perceives her. Here is another being whose mind and emotions function in the same way; another being with whom he can communicate; another human being he known, and by whom he can be known. “Bone of my bone…flesh of my flesh…intelligence cleaving to intelligence.”

To reduce human sexuality and marriage to mere reproduction is to equate human nature with that of a barnyard’s four footed inhabitants; it is to debase marriage by equating it with the breeding practices of the stockyard.

And yet in the name of “protecting the sanctity and dignity of traditional marriage,” this is, in effects, what Evangelicals, fundamentalists and LDS Mormons do.

Consider again the last two verses of Genesis, chapter two: leaving one’s parents and uniting with another human being—this is the essence of marriage.

It is not good that a person be alone. A person needs to have a “help meet” for him or her. That means that each of us needs another being who, by nature, can experience life as we experience it, think as we think, feel the same type of emotions that we feel; another human being who can communicate to us what they think and feel; someone with whom we can communicate; someone with whom we can share the experience of living life on earth as an intelligent being.

Affection, closeness, nurturance, sexual arousal, physical pleasure—these are ends in and of themselves. Part of what makes us human is that by out nature we are able to conceive of arousal and pleasure and physical intimacy as separate ideas in and of themselves. Our nature as beings who exist in the image of God—who is also an intelligent being (see Abraham 3:18-19)—is revealed in our sexual nature.

The essence of marriage is companionship. In fact, marriage IS companionship of the most intimate nature.

Consider this: when do most people consider a marriage to be over?

One spouse may commit adultery, yet so long as the couple continues to live together we consider the marriage—though flawed—to be intact. One spouse may physically or emotionally abuse the other; we may consider the marriage dysfunctional, but so long as the couple continues on together, we still consider them married. The sex life of a couple may die, but so long as the couple are there for one another as companions, they are considered married.

Now consider this: a couple has had a fulfilling sex life; they have been faithful to one another; they share a common philosophy or faith; they may have children whom they love and nurture. But should one spouse dissert the other, should one leave and cease all communication; should one spouse simply not “be there” for the other when that spouse is facing illness or tragedy—should any of these situations exist, then despite their past history, despite the children they share, despite the blessing their union may have received from either church or state—most people would view the marriage as over.

Companionship, having “a help meet” for oneself—such is the essence of marriage. A commitment and covenant to such a relationship is the basis of marriage. Reform Mormons believe that marriage is a New and Everlasting Covenant between consenting adults; that because there is something eternal in the nature of human intelligence, the marriage and family relationship can extend onward beyond this mortal life; that the Holy Spirit of Promise—present when two individuals willingly and loving enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage—will seal that union for time and eternity.

Concerning eternity, Mormon scripture states:

“..the same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.” (Doctrine & Covenants 130: 2)

The love of one spouse for another—regardless of gender—will continue because this kind of love is the product of human intelligence, and intelligence is an eternal attribute. Intelligence is the glory of God.

Reform Mormons believe that through marriage and family relationships, individuals may cultivate those virtues that are associated with God. The knowledge that we gain through out most intimate relationships with other humans is the knowledge that will ultimately exalt us and enable us to see things as God sees them. By fully immersing ourselves in these aspects of our humanity we become like the God in whose image we exist.

LDS and FLDS Mormons teach that marriage is essential for Godhood, but their theology is quite different from that of Reform Mormons. LDS and FLDS theology teaches that spirits are sexually begotten by a God and Goddess, and that the right to such divine reproduction will only be granted to those who are married for eternity. In other words, Godhood consists of being able to sexually reproduce in the next life.

What is surprising is the fact that this doctrine is taught nowhere in Mormon scripture; nor did Joseph Smith—Mormonism’s founder—ever teach this doctrine. In fact, Mormon scripture and Joseph Smith himself (in his famous King Follett Discourse) taught a theology on the nature of the human spirit that completely undermines such a doctrine.

(An earlier Gospel Doctrine lesson explores the history of this popular LDS and FLDS doctrine—showing how it was developed by Orson Pratt, after Joseph Smith’s death, as a theological justification for polygamy. To read this lesson, click on to our archives for the date of 10/17/04)

The LDS or FLDS homosexual who believes this theology can only get into heaven by prostituting his or herself. Such a person may go through a marriage ceremony, may have children, may cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex and give his or her self over to that person sexually—but the joy of experiencing mutual sexual attraction, of letting down one’s guard and communicating openly and honestly, of being secure that one is loved and desired for who one is; of desiring, wanting and valuing one’s spouse for who he or she is—these things which are essential to a truly happy marriage, these things they will never know.

The message of Reform Mormonism is that marriage should be available to all not because marriage is “the foundation of society,” but because the need for intimate companionship, the need for over-coming loneliness, to need to find “a help worthy of and equal to one’s self” is the essence of what it means to be human.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Do you have comments or insights on the subject being discussed here? Email them to us at: reformmormons@aol.com. Emails posted here may be edited for grammar or length.

CLASS DISCUSSION: "Truth, Sentimentality & Comfort Zones"

2008-06-16T16:52:00.000-07:00

In response to this past weekend’s lesson, Fabien in Edinburgh, Scotland writes:

“What an amazing lesson! I totally subscribe to what is written in it! I remember reading a long time ago that Brigham Young claimed that all truths were Mormonism and I interpret this as saying that Mormonism was a quest for truth and knowledge of God and all he expected us to do to become like him in all kinds of ways. So all truths would be working hand in hand with Mormonism to make this possible.

“I liked the image of Adam and Eve returning to a Garden that would not be what they remembered it to be...

“I also liked the idea of searching for God no into some "imagined immaterial world" but in this existence, on this planet. When I consider God, when I reflect on eternal truths and the mysteries of my faith, I do not think of some outer space world à la Kolob but I think of my own nature, created in the image of God, and then I feel so close to this planet, to the grass I sit on, to the leaves in the trees around me. When I commune with God this is not a silent prayer in a building built for that purpose. It can be, of course, but most often it is me being outside in nature and I feel the eternal side of me and that eternal side of me communicates with the kindred eternal side of my God.

“Thank you for another great and greatly inspiring lesson!”

Fabien publishes his own excellent blog in which he explores not only Reform Mormon ideas and concepts but also currents topics and news events relating to Mormonism generally. It’s entitled “Sorta Reform Mormon(s).” Link to it by clicking on to: www.reform-mormon.blogspot.com

On the issues of "comfort zones" and fear of the unknown, Wilhelm in Germany writes:

"While reading through the posting, one thing jumped into my mind, an example for a lot of points that have been mentioned . Electricity in different forms and use reminds me of truth. In its basic form – as lightining – it filled humans with fear for ages. Those humans didn´t know what happened and this added to their fear of the possible destruction it might cause.Whatever our forefathers thought about it – it was there. Science has a long history of discoveries that brought us knowledge of things that we could not see, not smell – and that we better not touch. Today we know how to work with electricity – but still need to follow some rules...You might seem like a magician or even as a God if you met humans who had never known about electricity and they saw you use a flashlight."

ON LESSONS FROM OUR ARCHIVE.

In response to a lesson from our archives (published on February 9, 2007), Lincoln writes:

“I just read and enjoyed your post on "THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE: Living in an Increasingly Interesting World". At the end of the post, you asked for readers' thoughts on progression and complexity. I certainly think the two are related in an important way: we progress by increasing in complexity, biologically and technologically. We can now readily observe that we have been increasing in technological complexity at an exponential rate for a long period of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change), and if this trend does not change then we will in the future continue to experience far greater changes in far shorter periods of time than we have experienced in the past. This observation corresponds in interesting ways with visions of the future expressed by Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets”
(http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/sunstone_west_2007/entry2338.aspx).

The second link that Lincoln shares is to the website for The Mormon Transhumanist Association. You can link to their website’s homepage at: www.transfigurism.org

______________________________________________

This online Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine Class is “discussion class”—a forum for Reform Mormons and those with an interest in Reform Mormonism to share their views on the doctrines and principles explored in the “lessons” published here.

So share your insights and views by emailing them to: reformmormons@aol.com. (Emails may be edited for spelling, grammar or length.)

As Reform Mormons, we recognize that there are many different denominations and traditions within worldwide Mormonism—including the LDS and FLDS Churches, the Community of Christ (RLDS) and the Strangite LDS Church, as well as families and individuals who belong to no organization whatsoever. All are welcomed here. However this is not a forum in which to attack Reform Mormonism concepts or to proselyte for other Mormon denominations or traditions.

As Reform Mormons we acknowledge that we are different from other Mormons. We are not Latter-day Saints, nor do we claim to be Christian. Reform Mormonism is founded on the premise that mid-19th century Mormon theology (introduced in Nauvoo, Illinois) sets up a religious paradigm that is completely different from that of Christianity and other monotheistic faiths. For us, Mormonism is truly a new religion.

Join the discussion!

Truth, Sentimentality and Comfort Zones

2008-06-14T15:06:00.000-07:00

“Truth is reason, truth eternal” –Eliza R. Snow: “O’ My Father” (19th century Mormon hymn)

“Truth, the sum of existence”-- John Jaques: “O Say What Is Truth?” (19th century Mormon hymn)

“Truth is a knowledge of things are they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”--Joseph Smith, (“The Doctrine & Covenants” 93:24)

“What has stood the test of time is not necessarily worthy of endurance. An error a thousand years old is still an error. An untruth repeated a thousand times in still an untruth.”— Apostle Richard L. Evans (from his 1940 collection of “Spoken Word“ sermonettes entitled “Unto The Hills” pp. 77)
___________________________________________________________________

We can feel sentimental only about the things that we know.

Recollections from childhood or youth; memories of family members, friends, teachers, co-workers, of holidays and vacations; past accomplishments; stories, ideas and rituals passed on to us by parents or authority figures; even ancient taboos that have been unquestioningly accept by everyone we know—these are the things which seem to define us as individuals, which set boundaries for acceptable behavior, which endow our existence with order and meaning, and which stir our emotions. Sentimentality can give the familiar, the known and the traditional an aura of ultimate and transcendent truth.

On the other hand, the human response to the unknown is caution—even fear, or dread.

The unknown, the unfamiliar may be initially perceived as a threat. Certainly the unknown can threaten whatever comfort zone we now inhabit. How can we feel comfortable and secure when we don’t understand the nature of that which confronts us? That which challenges traditions, which undermines the stories passed on to us; which threatens to supplant familiar rituals, to overturn long-accepted authorities and to erase ancient taboos—it is so easy to condemn such a thing as wrong, as evil, as an enemy to the truth.

But things that are unknown and unfamiliar exist just as surely as do those things that are known and the familiar. The unknown has an existence and a nature regardless of our awareness of it. Only by remaining completely ignorant of something can we sustain the illusion that it is completely wrong, completely evil and untrue.

Exposure to what was previously unknown—exposure in any degree whatsoever—brings, to some degree, understanding. Ignorance begins to recede, and our minds—which will, on some level, always involuntarily follow the evidence presented to them—will begin to process the information. We may deny the reality of the evidence. In our minds we may create little compartments in which we attempt to hide away these new facts—usually in an attempt to preserve the lovely aura of ultimate and transcendent truth that sentimentality has endowed the things with which we are familiar.

But once we acquire any amount of knowledge concerning something that was previously unknown, the shimmer of past sentiment never shines quite as brightly as once it did.

Mythic Eden was a garden of eternal delights for Adam and Eve until they ate the fruit of Knowledge, and left the garden for the world beyond it gates. Were they to have returned to the garden after living in the outside world and experiencing what had previously been unknown, it is doubtful that they would have seen Eden as a paradise of endless pleasures or delights.

Exploring the unfamiliar and the unknown does that: it changes previous assumptions, makes familiar stories and conclusions seem simplistic; it opens our eyes to the contradictions and to the opposition that is present every where in the universe.

“In all the changing picture, it is good to keep in mind that while there is nothing so constant a change, neither is there anything so changeless as truth.” (Richard L. Evans)

For this very reason—the opening of our eyes to the true nature of reality—venturing forward out of our comfort zones is essential not just to our emotional, intellectual and spiritual growth but to over very survival on earth.

“Perhaps one of the things we should keep uppermost in mind as we live from day to day is the fact that there is little to be gained by fighting anything that is incontrovertible. There is nothing to be gained by fighting against the laws of nature, but there is much to be gained by recognizing them and using them. There can be no possible benefit derived from fighting against truth, even though truth gives us inconvenience at times; but there is much to be reaped from accepting and working within the laws of truth.” (Richard L. Evans)

There were cultures that firmly believed a human sacrifice to the gods would cause crops to grow, the rain to fall or the sun to shine, cure disease or plague, or ensure victory in an upcoming battle against an enemy. These beliefs held ultimate authority over the minds of such people, evoking in them all the sentiment, the powerful emotions, and the sense of comfort and security that our most cherished beliefs and traditions evoke in us.

But such emotions, such a sense of security did not change the fact that taking a human life on the altar of a god had no direct cause and effect on the weather, on fertility, on the natural course of disease, or on the movement of stars and planets. The emotions, sentiments and sense of security that such sacrifices inspired in those cultures could only be sustained as long as those cultures remained ignorant of natural law; as long as they stayed within the comfort zone created by traditions and taboos. Once they were exposed to the previously unknown and unfamiliar, what had been seen as transcendently true had to be questioned, reexamined and put in a new context that robbed it of its presumed ultimate authority.

It is no wonder that the Christian world interprets the myth of Adam and Eve’s eating of the fruit of Knowledge as a sin—as the Original Sin from which all misery descends. Knowledge endows us with a sense of our own nakedness before the natural elements, of our mortality and physical limitations, of the fragility of life on earth. The continuing revelation of truth more fully opens our eyes to the necessity of thinking for ourselves, of making choices and taking responsibility for those choices. What evaporates in this eternal drama of continuing revelation is the past illusion that we knew all we needed to know; that the meaning of existence was easy to grasp if we would accept as the final revelation of truth only those things that were already known.

But something eternally precious is gained with the passing such illusions: human progress; the advance of civilization; the ascendancy of a new vision in which human life itself becomes the highest value.

“…when truth comes into conflict with a man’s convenience, or with his traditional beliefs, there are several ways he can act toward it. He may pretend that he is not aware of its existence, thereby deceiving no one but himself. He may attempt to discredit it by assailing its veracity. Or, perhaps at great cost, he may accept it for what it is and make it a part of his life. If he does, no matter what he pays for it, he has purchased wisely.” (Richard L. Evans)

Reform Mormon theology deviates from nearly every other religion in its definition of truth.

Most religions in general offer an ethereal, mystical—and misty, fuzzy—concept of truth. They often described the truth as something separate from the physical sphere and natural world; as something that is “spiritual”—meaning, immaterial and thus incomprehensible to rationalistic human thought.

In contrast, Mormon theology defines truth as knowledge of things as they were, of things as they are and of things as they are to come. Mormonism teaches that the human mind is capable of learning new truth eternally; it declares that the human race can “comprehend all things” that are revealed; that at some point in time humanity “will comprehend even God.” (See “Doctrine & Covenants” 121:28-31 and 88:49)

While other religions teach that there are different types of truth which might contradict one another, Mormonism teaches that “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.” (This is the symbolical meaning of the Compass—which is the central visual element in the symbol for Reform Mormonism.) Truth—being knowledge of existence—is true regardless of whether it is revealed through theological speculation, scientific research, or even through atheistic and secular search and discovery.

When all is said and done it is not faith, tradition, warm feelings or sentiments that save us—temporally or eternally; it is knowledge. Reform Mormonism embraces—fully, and without apology or equivocation—that “knowledge is what saves a man.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse.”)

The quest for truth is the quest for knowledge. The quest for truth is moving forward into the unknown and the unfamiliar. We humans are by nature rational beings. Our quest for truth does not take us out of the world to some imagined immaterial spiritual realm. Rather the quest for truth calls us to live in the world and to embrace life on earth—and in the cosmos beyond--more fully. To answer this call is to embrace our humanity—and ultimately divinity itself.

“Through the devious ways of life the seekers are the finders; the searchers are they who are rewarded by discovery; and, in the pursuit of all truth, all men approach nearer unto a knowledge and understanding of God. (Richard L. Evans)

John Jaques, the 19th century Mormon writer, celebrated this concept of truth in one of his best known hymns:

“Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire…
Then say, what is truth? 'Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o'er.
Though the heavens depart and the earth's fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.

MY JOSEPH: Mormonism Outside the Box

2008-06-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

Reform Mormonism is Mormonism “outside the box.”

What is “the box?”

For the most part it is the large church organizations that lay claim to the name “Mormon.” These are the institutions such as the LDS Church in Salt Lake City with its Temple Square, its Tabernacle Choir, its thousands of young missionaries knocking on front doors the world over.

The “box” is also an institution such as the FLDS Church, with its polygamous marriages, its women in swept up hairdos and retro-pioneer-style prairie skirts, its secret marriages of underage girls to older men, its distrust of modernity and the secular world.

The “box” is the attempt by an institution—especially the LDS Church—to proclaim that it alone is the “one true church.”

The “box” is the attempt by such an institution to convince the world that it is “THE Mormon Church,” and that all things Mormons can be properly understood only in the context of its laws and by-laws; of its history, traditions and policies; of it’s power, authority, hierarchy and priesthood.

Since all Mormon denominations and sects descend from the teachings of Joseph Smith—the First Mormon—the larger institutions try to keep Joseph himself in the “box” that they have created. They ignore his history, cover it up, apologize for it, deny it, lie about it, and create counter myths—all in an attempt to keep Joseph in their “box.”

The LDS Church in Salt Lake City has been particularly successful in doing this. It has convinced the world that—contrary to the proven facts of history—Joseph Smith prophetic calling consisted of founding their institution, which they claim is the “only true and living church on the face of the earth.” Just as in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had succeeded in convincing the world that one could not be a true Christian outside of their church and priesthood—and that the Apostle Peter was the first pope—so the LDS Church has asserted as fact that one can not be a true Mormon outside of its institution and priesthood. The LDS institution has created the office of church president, stuck the label of “prophet, seer and revelator” to it, and successfully convinced its millions of members that Joseph Smith was a “true prophet” in the way that the LDS institution defines “true prophet.”

In Temple Square murals and films, and in LDS Church educational and missionary publications, Joseph Smith is presented as the soft-spoken, outwardly meek and “Christ-like,” non-threatening person that modern LDS Church presidents try to be.

Proper priesthood authority” is essential to the LDS institution, and the LDS Church president is a “true prophet” BECAUSE he holds “the proper Priesthood authority.” The concept of this Priesthood authority is the most important aspect of the “box” into which the LDS institution attempts to cram Mormon theology and Joseph Smith.

For those Mormons raised in the LDS tradition, all concepts of Mormon theology and Joseph Smith are so intertwined with LDS institution’s authoritarian claims that they find it difficult to separate them one from another.

A few months ago I was explaining the tenants of Reform Mormonism to some good folk who had been raised LDS, but who had since left that tradition. Many had been so indoctrinated with the LDS Church’s official version of things that they struggled to even comprehend the basic concepts of Reform Mormonism.

Especially confusing and unsettling was the Reform Mormon approach to Joseph Smith—an approach which is more or less the same as that of secular historians.

One friend—Vahn—wrote the following to me:

“I'm actually very intrigued at what you believe and don't believe…One of the few things that separates Mormons [the LDS Church] from other denominations is the claim on priesthood authority…Why do you cling so heavily to Mormonism if you throw out the idea of Priesthood? A prophet isn't a prophet without it, only a charismatic man.”

Having been raised LDS, my friend had bought “the box” into which the LDS institution has tried to cram Joseph Smith; to take Joseph Smith out of this “box” (as we Reform Mormons do) was to deny that Joseph was a prophet. One simply could not BE Mormon outside of the LDS institution.

And so I wrote back, trying to explain not only how we Reform Mormons views Joseph Smith but also prophets in general.

I wrote:

“Why would something like Priesthood be required to be a prophet? Such thinking is part of the box into which the LDS and FLDS churches have tried to cram Mormonism.

“Joseph Smith was acknowledged as a prophet for years before he and Sydney Rigdon came up with the doctrine of Priesthood. The first Mormons organized a church in 1830 without any claims to Priesthood authority. For the next four years Mormonism flourished as a religious movement without any concept of Priesthood or Priesthood authority. The witnesses to "The Book of Mormon" deserted Mormonism because they argued that the doctrine of Priesthood, introduced for the first time in Kirtland in 1834, actually undermined the original prophetic spirit of Mormonism.

“You also said that a prophet without Priesthood is only a charismatic man.

“I humbly disagree.

“Instead I would say that a man WITHOUT CHARISMA is no prophet at all—regardless of how much Priesthood authority he might claim to possess.

“CHARISMA is part of what makes one a prophet.

“Joseph Smith was a prophet BECAUSE he had charisma.

“World renowned Jewish writer, Harold Bloom, in his great work "The American Religion" went so far as to say that Joseph Smith was killed BECAUSE he had TOO MUCH charisma.

“People use the word “charisma” all the time (usually when discussing celebrities). They seem to have no idea that “charisma” is a religious concept. Here is the dictionary definition of the word:

“ ‘1. Theology. a divinely conferred gift or power.
2. A spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.
3. The special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like. "

(From www.dictionary.com)

“CHARISMA is that seemingly inherent quality that an individual has, that draws the attention of others; that seems to give power and authority to his or her words; it is that which wins the emotions and hearts of others so easily; that makes a person entertaining to a great extent.

“The decent, high-minded, successful business men and professionals who serve as the LDS Church’s General Authorities can claim all the Priesthood they wish. But to listen to them speak in their steady, low, sleep-inducing tones is to know that these men are not prophets— because they have no charisma.

“Mind you: I think they are highly principled, God-fearing men. But they are religious leaders—CEO's of a world-wide religious organization. They are not, to my mind, prophets.

“Prophets—because they are endowed with charisma—are rarely boring; they are rarely predictable.

“Because prophets radiate charisma, they disrupt society. They are an affront to the most cherished religious values and notions and traditions that people hold. Why would a prophet even open his or her mouth if the status quo were fine, or if the most cherished traditions of a culture were above reproach?

“Prophets enflame deep feelings in virtually all people with whom they come in contact—and those feelings include love, hate, admiration, revulsion, worship, loathing, sexual passion, despair and hope.

“The one sensation that a true prophet never inspires is the feeling that society is fine just that way it is; that tradition and the status quo--especially regarding religion—are to be protected and preserved.

“Only one thing can guide us through the maze of burning passions--positive and negative—that prophets arouse within us.

“That thing is REASON. Not reason unattached to emotion, but the rational faculty within humans that is--despite all we've been taught—the very fountain from which all our emotions flow.

“Under the light of reason, every word, action and principle of a prophet must be examined—for no prophet is infallible.

“A prophet is a still a human being. The office of prophet is a mortal office, not a divine one—though the divine phenomenon of charisma flows through it.

“Though the power of charisma may tempt us to do otherwise, the one thing no prophet must ever be given is mindless adoration or unquestioning obedience.

(This is a temptation that humans often give into to when entering the presence of Gods. Overwhelmed by the holiness of Deity, men believe themselves helpless; they drop to their knees, and give into mindless worship and praise--forgetting that "the Glory of God is Intelligence," and that mindlessness is the one condition that alone separates the human fromm the Divine; for the mind of man, like the Gods, is uncreated—and in the image of God does man exist.)

“To examine and question a prophet--and to find him or her coming up short, in no way diminishes their office as a prophet. In the end it is not the prophet, but the self-examination that he or she inspires within us that is of eternal importance.

“That examination must never end with a question like, "Will I obey or disobey this prophet? Will I submit or resist?"

“The final question must always be: does this principle conform to reality? Because truth is a knowledge of reality; it is a knowledge of what is objective; of things as they really are, really were and really will be.

“I decided to leave the LDS Church in January of 203, when I realized that certain principles Joseph Smith taught about human nature were true. In a moment that seemed revelatory, I saw human nature for what it was, and I saw how that nature was the one and only connection we humans have, not only to one another, but to the being we revere as God.

“At the moment I knew that I could never again enter an LDS Church or Temple as a believing member of that institution. But I also realized that on a level more deep than any I had ever contemplated or experienced, I was then—and would always be—Mormon.

“I wasn't raised Mormon or LDS. No missionary came knocking at my door to give me the discussions. I did not know a single Mormon growing up. But in my American history class, during my junior year of High school, we read one and a half pages of Mormon history. I was so intrigued by what I read, that the following Saturday I went to the local library and checked out everything I could find on Mormons. That day I began reading the first book I ever read about Joseph Smith: “No Man Knows My History” by Fawn Brodie.

“The title for this classic of Mormon historical scholarship comes from the last few sentences of the last public address that Joseph Smith gave to the Mormon community of Nauvoo, Illinois: his famous “King Follett Discourse.” Joseph ended his greatest sermon by telling his own followers that they did not know him; that they would never, in this life, know him; that no living soul knew him or his real history, and that he would never attempt to tell that history to anyone.

“How many LDS Mormons understand the profound implications of that utterance by Joseph Smith?

“That statement hints at not only the profound loneliness of a human being endowed with charisma, but the personal tragedy that prophets feel is their lot as human beings, no matter how close they may feel to the Divine or the transcendent. Brodie was a genius to have chosen that statement for her biography of Joseph!

“The Joseph Smith that I accept as a prophet was first revealed in Brodie’s classic book. And he continues to be revealed in the facts of early Mormon history that scholars are constantly uncovering.

“’My Joseph Smith’ was a genius who was born into poverty, drudgery, superstition and religious fanaticism. He became immersed in folk-magic as a teen; flirted with religious enthusiasm as a young man. Using his religion-making imagination, he took bits and pieces of ideas erupting all over the wild new American Republic, and began fashioning something completely new.

“The religion Joseph was creating was always a work in progress, and when he was murdered, I don't think it was any where near completion. But by that time, enough of a new religious paradigm existed that it could serve as the foundation for something exciting and new;something that could speak to rational men and women for centuries to come.

" ‘My Joseph’ was a religious fraud who eventually became a true prophet—not in the dry, institutional sense of LDS tradition, but in the Romantic sense; in the sense that Hawthorne, Dickinson, Melville, Whitman, Thoreau and Emerson were prophets; in the sense that America herself was born of a prophetic impulse.

“And so ‘My Joseph’ tromped and often times strutted across New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois (nothing meek or lamb-like about him.)

“He laughed and mocked the overly pious; enjoyed pulling sticks and wrestling in the street; smoked an occasional cigar and enjoyed a stiff drink often.

"’My Joseph’ would threaten and even bully someone he believed wronged him, while at the same time was so generous in his first impressions of people that he was forever trusting the wrong people. The volatile, fanatical zealot Sydney Rigdon, and the cunning, politically-minded John C. Bennett are but a few of “the wrong people” who at first impressed Joseph with their own brands of charisma, and who later misled, manipulated and then turned on him.

“Joseph once told a group of his closest followers that he would go to Hell to get his wife Emma if she were there—and "My Joseph” meant it, too; and yet he broke her heart by marrying many of her closest female friends behind her back...and all because, I think, he was a profoundly lonely individual who felt that no one on earth "knew his history."

"’My Joseph’ dreamed not of founding a church, but of building a great American city—a Zion, a New Jerusalem—which could boast every virtue, art and glory humans could devise, and to which the rest of the world would flow.

"’My Joseph’ never for an instant gave a serious thought to the devil, to hell or damnation—though everything in his upbringing told him that he should. He said once that if he went to Hell, he'd kick he devil out and make a heaven out of the place.

“Most importantly to me, ‘My Joseph’ could never get emotionally involved in the religious worship of his day. He freely admitted that when as a youth he attending camp meetings and religious revivals, he could never fall down, roll about and cry out; and though he could create narratives of past prophets quaking before the unveiled glory of Israel's God, "My Joseph” never experienced such a sensation when confronted by his God. "My Joseph” could only approach God as one man might another, as something of a mirrored image—rather like mythical Adam, when he first opened his eyes on the morn of his creation and gazed into the face of Deity.

“Over the years I have become convinced that fearlessness before the face of God is the mark of a true prophet. The true prophet is unafraid of bartering with God—as Abraham bartered with the God Yahweh in an attempt to save Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. The true prophet is unafraid to challenge God to a wrestling match; unafraid to use his own human strength to defend himself against a divine assault; unafraid to pin God to the ground if necessary and demand a blessing—demand that God treat him with the respect due to a being existing in the image and likeness of Deity.

“Of course, the true prophets are denounced, despised, persecuted and sometimes killed by the priests, the scribes and the Pharisees of their day. In this, “My Joseph” was not exception. It was his passionate battles with the highest leadership within the Mormon community at Nauvoo that led to his downfall, his arrest and his murder by a lynch mob.

“Sometime true prophets are fortunate enough to have their lives and teachings faithfully preserved in scripture. But those in later generations who claim to be their most devoted disciples—who claim the authority to defend, protect and honor their memory and the orthodoxy of their teachings—are the first to distance themselves from the implications of the most profound principles that those prophets taught.

“Such authorities—while devoting their lives to praising true prophets—are the first to gloss over, to tone down and to overtly deny that true prophets ever wrestled with Deity. Thus the Biblical account of Jacob wrestling with God is transformed into the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel—and most are never told that the actual meaning of Jacob’s new name ‘Israel’ is ‘to contend with God.’

“Such authorities build monuments to the memory of their prophets while intentionally obscuring what was truly prophetic in such men and women.

“You earlier wrote that you can no longer accept the Joseph Smith you saw on Temple Square and in the LDS Church films, paintings and books.

“I've seen those films and images; I've read those books. I've been to Temple Square many times over the past 29 years.

“I have never once seen a likeness of ‘My Joseph’ there.”

PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TO MEN

2007-12-23T12:12:00.001-08:00

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."
(Luke 2:14)

“I heard the bell on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men.

“I thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth goodwill to men.

“Then in despair I bowed my head:
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men.”

In his immortal carol, "I Heard the Bells On Christmas Day," Longfellow rightfully laments that there is no earthly peace despite the fact that for nearly two thousand years Christendom's unbroken song has been "peace on earth, goodwill to men."

Could it be that the establishment of peace is predicated upon goodwill towards humanity? If so, we might ask if Christendom--and indeed, any established religions both eastern and western--has fostered "goodwill to men."

Certainly each of world's religions has contributed to the progress of humankind to varying degrees. But each has also, to varying degrees, set limits on human progress. Each at some point in its histories has, however briefly, declared war on some aspect of human nature; each at some point in its history, however briefly, has resorted to some kind force in an effort to "redeem" human nature or "save" humanity from itself.

Can true and authentic "goodwill to men" be long established if human nature is viewed as something that must be "overcome" or "perfected?" And by "perfected," most traditional religions mean "changed."

How much goodwill can one have toward the human family if they are viewed as inherently sinful or fallen? If one's fellowmen and women are seen as tainted by Original Sin, if all human endeavors--regardless of how noble--are looked upon as futile BECAUSE they are HUMAN endeavors, then how long can goodwill be sustained.

If one believes that God has consigned every last human to eternal hell and misery for the sin of having been born human, unless they throw themselves on His mercy, or accept the bloody human sacrifice of one prefect man on their behalf, or meekly submit to God's law and will as recorded in some ancient document; if one believes that lasting joy and spiritual bliss can only be achieved through denying the appetites of the human body, or by overcoming human emotion and reason, or by breaking any connections with or desires toward the physical world and life on earth, or somehow obliterating (a.k.a., "overcoming" or "sacrificing") one's ego or sense of self--how can any of these beliefs truly nurture goodwill to men? Each of these, in a profound way, targets human nature as the enemy.

And yet Jesus, whose birth is celebrated with the proclamation of such goodwill, taught that in the end people would be judged by their treatment of one another. "Whatsoever ye have done to one of these, the least of my brethren, ye have done unto me," he told his disciples on his last night with them. Jesus broke down the walls that separated human beings from God; he eliminated the distance between human nature and the divine. Indeed, the religious establishment of Jesus' day accused him of blasphemy because "you, being a man, make yourself equal with God."

Orthodox Christianity is based on the doctrine that in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God was incarnated in human form; that “God became one of us.” If that be the case, Jesus’ teaching regarding our treatment of one another has an even more profound meaning: what we do to one another, we do to God.

Mormonism took this concept a step further--and a big step it was, too--as blasphemous and heretical in light of the established religions of its time, as Jesus' teachings were in light of the religion of his day. The defining aspect of Mormonism's new revelation was this: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become."

The message of Reform Mormonism is that our human nature is our most profound connection to God; human nature is what we have in common with Deity.

The mind of man; human consciousness; the way in which human beings perceive the natural world around them; the manner in which the human imagination works; the way in which we connect to the natural world and to one another--even on the most visceral level; the unrestrained freedom that is inherent in human thought and emotion; the questioning nature of human intelligence, and its resistance to mindless obedience and willful ignorance--all of these things make us human. All of these constitute what it means to exist "in the image of God."

No other species or life form of which we now know possesses that attribute that we called human intelligence.

Has that intelligence brought forth suffering and evil? It certainly has. But that is no reason to decry human nature itself, for it is also the nature of human intelligence to judge and evaluate those things it has brought forth. It is the nature of human intelligence to repent of wrong done, and to seek after justice and mercy. Certainly credit human intelligence for the evils it has brought forth; but likewise do not forget to credit it for every single virtue and good that exists among us, for every single praiseworthy human achievement, for every single advancement among the human race.

The message of Reform Mormonism is that human nature and human intelligence are not to be attacked. They are not to changed or overcome. They are not to be obliterated or rendered merely temporal.

"The glory of God is intelligence," Mormonism proclaims. Human intelligence, human endeavors, human progress and above all, human life itself--these are God's values.

"This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immorality and eternal life of man." So declares the God of Mormonism.

"Ye are gods; all of you are children of the Most High." So proclaimed the Psalmist.

"Whatsoever you do to one of these, the least of my brethren, you do unto me." So taught Jesus of Nazareth.

"As God now is, man may become." So says Mormonism.

The human race is the glory of God. God looks upon us as we now are, and sees His own past. Deity regards human nature with no more animosity that does a mother or father when they consider their own childhood.

Could it be that this view of things--this view of God and of human nature--is a key toward nurturing goodwill to men, and as a consequence, peace on earth?

“Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
‘God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, goodwill to me.’

Till, ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men!”

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR!

THE FOURTH COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

2007-11-18T14:22:00.000-08:00

The following is the last in our series of lessons dealing with the Reform Mormon Endowment. This lesson deals specifically with the third of the four covenants administered in the Endowment. Unlike other Mormon traditions, Reform Mormonism does not require a special Temple Recommend or some proof of “worthiness” in order to celebrate the Endowment. Anyone sixteen years of age or older who identifies him or herself a Reform Mormon, who understands the covenants and is willing to enter into them, may participate in the ordinance. As was the early Mormon practice before the building of the Nauvoo Temple in Illinois, the Reform Mormon Endowment is currently presented in spaces temporarily set apart and dedicated for the ordinance. This is done during special “Temple Events.” If you would like more information on having such an event in your area, write us at:

reformmormons@aol.com or reformmormons@yahoo.com

THE PRINCIPLE OF RESTORATION

The fourth covenant of the Reform Mormon Endowment is related to the four principle of Reform Mormonism: Restoration.

The concept of Restoration is important to Mormons of all denominations. However, the definition and understanding of this concept differs so radically from one Mormon denomination to another, that it’s necessary for us to explore—very briefly—the evolution of the concept through Mormon history, and how the Reform Mormon concept of Restoration differs from the concept embraced by such organizations as the LDS and FLDS Churches.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONEPT OF “ RESTORATION” IN MORMON HISTORY

When the largest denominations of Mormonism--the LDS Church in Salt Lake City, the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) in Missouri, and the FLDS Church in Texas—speak of “the restoration” they mean specifically a restoration of the divine authority needed to once again organize the ancient church government which they believe existed in the days of Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

Each of these churches (the LDS and the FLDS churches more so than the RLDS Church) claims that their respective organizations is “the one and only true and living church on the face of the earth.” In other words, to enter the presence of God after this life, every single human being must submit to their respective organization’s ordinances, rites and ceremonies. They believe that they alone have the divine authority from God—called “the Priesthood”—to administer those ordinances.

Thus, a Christian who has been baptized, must be baptized again by someone holding their Priesthood authority when joining their churches. Because they believe that they alone have the authority to administer the Sacrament (the Lord’s Supper), they do not recognize as legitimate in God’s eyes, the communion administered by other Christian churches. For the LDS and FLDS, unless a man and a woman have had their marriage performed for “time and all eternity” by an authorized member of their church’s Priesthood, that couple will be eternally separated from one another—and from any children they may have—when this life is over.

Particularly in the LDS and FLDS Churches, the concept of “restoration” means the restoration of the Priesthood and of the only true church organization authorized and recognized by God. For the LDS and FLDS, there is no salvation in the fullest sense (meaning eternal life in the presence of God, outside of their respective church organizations. The devout Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, atheist—while they each may be righteous, will be consigned to a lower degree of glory unless they accept the LDS and FLDS claims that they alone hold Divine authority (The Priesthood) and submit to their ordinances and rituals.

The LDS and FLDS believe that the restoration of this Divine authority were historic events that took place in 1829 in New York and in Pennsylvania. Supposedly one two different dates, Heavenly messengers (John the Baptist on one date in the Spring of 1829, and the Apostles Peter, James and John on later unknown date) appeared to Joseph Smith—the First Mormon—and his scribe, Oliver Cowdrey. Supposedly these heavenly messengers laid their hands on Joseph’s and Oliver’s heads, bestowing on them the Lower Priesthood (called the Aaronic Priesthood) and the High Priesthood (called the Melchezedek Priesthood). With these ordinations by Heavenly beings, Joseph and Oliver were given the authority to preach, baptize, organize the one and only true church, and administer its ordinances and rituals; the Priesthood and the One True Church were restored to the earth.

This scenario is so central is this to LDS and FLDS Mormonism, that it comes as a shock to the student of Mormon history to discover that the entire scenario of heavenly messengers and Priesthood restoration was a later development in Mormonism. The first Mormons in New York State and in Kirtland, Ohio originally had no concept of Priesthood authority or of a “Restoration” as now understood in the LDS and FLDS traditions. When the original Mormon church (then called “the Church of Christ”) was organized in April 1830, there were no Priesthood offices, no Priesthood ordinations, no claims of Heavenly ordinations, etc. The congregation itself elected by vote, and set apart by their collective authority as believers, Joseph Smith as the new church’s First Elder, and Oliver Cowdrey as its Second Elder.

If one reads the original published versions of Joseph Smith’s first 64 revelations in his “Book of Commandments,” and compares them to the rewritten versions printed in the modern “Doctrine & Covenants” as Sections 1 through 64, one will find no references at all to either Priesthood or to a restoration of “one true church.” (Indeed, several entire sections which focus on these later doctrines and which are dated from 1824 and the early 1830s, do not even appear in “The Book of Commandments,” because they were not even written until the late 1830’s and 1840’s.)

Until 1834, the first Mormons organized their church along the lines of the Methodists. (Joseph Smith had been a member of the Palmyra Methodist church’s debating team, had preached as a teen at Methodists gatherings, and had applied for membership in a Methodist congregation in 1825.) But it 1834, there was a mass dissention among Mormons in Kirtland, Ohio. To fight this, claims to divine Priesthood authority were put forth by Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon (at that time, Mormonism’s most popular leader) in an effort to hold the church together and strengthen its organization. Many of Mormonism’s founders (such as the majority of witnesses to “The Book of Mormon”) were so opposed to the very idea of a restoration of ancient Priesthood, that they left the church altogether. One of Mormonism’s earliest leaders and shinning lights, David Whitmer, maintained until his death some forty years later that the concept of a restoration of a Priesthood was not part of original Mormonism, but was introduced by Sydney Rigdon in 1834 in an attempt to consolidate control over the Mormon community in Ohio.

To this date, no contemporary evidence prior to 1834 has been found in the writings of Joseph Smith and other Mormons to substantiate the later claims of a restoration of Priesthood authority

And yet the concept of “Restoration” was central to early Mormonism. The doctrine of “the Restoration” is found through “The Book of Mormon.” However, it is not a doctrine related to either Priesthood authority or the idea of “one true church.”

It is this understanding—the original Mormon understanding of “Restoration” that is central to Reform Mormonism. It is this understanding of “Restoration” that is symbolized during the last portion of the Reform Mormon Endowment.

THE ORIGINAL MORMON DOCTRINE OF THE RESTORATION

In “The Book of Mormon,” the words “restore” and “restoration” are used in two contexts. One is in regard the restoration of the scattered Tribes of Israelites and their decedents to the lands and status God anciently granted them in the Hebrew Bible.

But the other context is much broader and has universal application; it has to do with survival of the individual after death. In this context, “Restoration” IS the resurrection of the dead. One of the first passages in “The Book of Mormon” that equates the “restoration” with the resurrection is the following:

“… the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. O how great the plan of our God!... the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect.”(“The Book of Mormon,” II Nephi 9: 12-13)

Later in the book, nearly three full chapters in Alma are devoted to equating the “restoration” with the resurrection of the dead, and with explaining the importance and centrality of this concept with the Divine plan for humanity. Here are some highlights from those chapters:

“The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

"Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.” (“The Book of Mormon,” Alma 11:43-44)

“Now my son, here is somewhat more I would say unto thee; for I perceive that thy mind is worried concerning the resurrection of the dead …there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection. Behold, there is a time appointed that all shall come forth from the dead. Now when this time cometh no one knows; but God knoweth the time which is appointed. Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, that men shall come forth from the dead, it mattereth not; for God knoweth all these things; and it sufficeth me to know that this is the case—that there is a time appointed that all shall rise from the dead. ... it [the resurrection] meaneth the reuniting of the soul with the body… the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their works. Yea, this [the resurrection] bringeth about the restoration of those things of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets.... I say unto thee, my son,that the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of God; for it is requisite that all things should be restored to their proper order. Behold, it is requisite and just, according to the power and resurrection of Christ, that the soul of man should be restored to its body, and that every part of the body should be restored to itself.” (“The Book of Mormon,” Alma 40:1, 3-5, 18, 21-22; 41:2)

“And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?…the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful. Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.re For that which ye do send out shall turn unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all. (“The Book of Mormon,” Alma 41: 12-15)

“..,the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice….Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God.” (“The Book of Mormon,” Alma 42: 23,27-28)

While couched in traditional Christian terms, the original Mormon doctrine of the Restoration had to do with the individual eventually being restored from death to life; with being changed from a temporal condition to an eternal condition; with standing before God and reaping the eternal consequences of one’s actions (or, in the terminology of “The Book of Mormon” having “restored” to one’s self” according to his deeds.”)

At the foundation of the original Mormon doctrine of Restoration is the belief that the individual is an eternal being, and that one’s values, choices and actions can have eternal consequences. Though humans are subject to death, early Mormonism taught that it was the Divine plan to “bring to pass the immorality and eternal life of man.” (See Moses 1:39) In other words, it is God’s work and glory to restore mortals to an immortal state.

THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

Most religions have a belief in immortality. But Mormonism broke from monotheism in one very profound way. All monotheistic religions worship one God who is the Creator of all things. Humans are the creations of that one God, and while most believe that God intends for humans to survive death and have an everlasting existence beyond the confines of this present existence, all of these religion nevertheless teach that humans had a definite beginning. Thus all humans are finite.

In the last years of his life, Joseph Smith explicitly rejected this doctrine—which is the foundational doctrine of all monotheistic faiths.

Joseph taught that the mind—the spirit or intelligence—of each individual is eternal, uncreated, without beginning or end; that it has a material component that has always existed, the same as all matter.

Below are Joseph’s final teachings (delivered just weeks before his death) regarding the eternal nature of the individual:

“…the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don't believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through; if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.

“We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. …
“The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true…

“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

“I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So it is with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning,it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follet Discourse,” April 7, 1844)

THE FOURTH COVENANT

These truths are taught at the very beginning of the Reform Mormon Endowment. The ceremony which follows is a symbolic journey through life. The ceremony ends at the veil, which is symbolic of that which separates the present from the future, the temporal from the eternal. Here at the veil, each individually symbolically encounters God for him or herself.

At the veil each participant makes the Fourth covenant which is that he or she will always try to see the eternal aspects of all things.

Having made that final covenant, the Endowment ends with the participant passing through the veil, which symbolizes being restored to the Divine presence and entering the Celestial Glory of the Gods.

THE THIRD COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

2007-10-19T18:30:00.000-07:00

The following is the next in our series of lessons dealing with the Reform Mormon Endowment. This lesson deals specifically with the third of the four covenants administered in the Endowment. Unlike other Mormon traditions, Reform Mormonism does not require a special Temple Recommend or some proof of “worthiness” in order to celebrate the Endowment. Anyone sixteen years of age or older who identifies him or herself a Reform Mormon, who understands the covenants and is willing to enter into them, may participate in the ordinance. As was the early Mormon practice before the building of the Nauvoo Temple in Illinois, the Reform Mormon Endowment is currently presented in spaces temporarily set apart and dedicated for the ordinance. This is done during special “Temple Events.” If you would like more information on having such an event in your area, write us at:

reformmormons@aol.com or reformmormons@yahoo.com

REVELATION: THE THIRD PRINCIPLE OF REFORM MORMONISM

The third covenant in the Reform Mormon Endowment is related to the third principle of Reform Mormonism: revelation.

From the very beginning, the principle of revelation has been central to Mormonism. As Mormon historian, Kathleen Flake explains:

“Mormonism's sense of revelation may be distinct in its ubiquitousness -- how everybody feels they can get it and that they must get it. The "it" that they're going to get is as dramatic as anything they read in the Bible: that they hear voices; they dream dreams; they have visions; and they expect in their daily walk to receive instruction if they're living worthily, that God is able to drop in at any particular time and say, "Stop what you're doing; I need you to go visit Brother or Sister So-and-so; they need help…
… Mormonism could not exist without revelation. The Bible is not enough for them. ... It is revelation or nothing for these people, and if they ever lose that, then they have no reason for being. Their whole message is ‘God speaks today.’
....Joseph Smith's uniqueness can, I think, be understood by an analogy that I sometimes use to Henry Ford. Henry Ford wanted a car in every home. Joseph Smith was the Henry Ford of revelation. He wanted every home to have one, and the revelation he had in mind was the revelation he'd had, which was seeing God.” (From the 2007 PBS documentary series, “The Mormons.”)

READ, PONDER & PRAY:
REASON'S ROLE IN THE MORMON CONCEPT OF REVELATION
Traditionally revelation has been conceived solely as a supernatural phenomenon: one seeks some sort of knowledge and through some supernatural means—such as a vision, a heavenly voice or the appearance of a being from some heavenly realm—the knowledge is revealed. Mormonism as religious movement began on the American frontier of the 1820’s among individuals who claimed to have experienced revelations of this sort.
But at the same time there was an element of intellectualism and naturalism in the early Mormon concept of the revelatory process—and it is this element that is central to the Reform Mormon principle of revelation.

Reform Mormons do not believe that one should go through life expecting the laws of nature to be suspended. Indeed, since Reform Mormonism is based primarily on mid-19th century Mormon theology (a theology which profoundly contradicted the theology of early Mormonism), Reform Mormons hold that nature is supreme, and that God works within the context of natural law. One of the most radical doctrines of mid-19th century Mormonism (a doctrine which orthodox Christians and traditional monotheists to this day consider heretical and blasphemous) is that God is a limited being who, no more than man, can break the eternal laws of nature which govern all existence.
For Reform Mormons the process of obtaining personal revelation does not consist of discarding rational thought or turning a blind eye to the realities of the natural world. Instead, revelation can come only when one engages one’s entire rational faculties.

From the earliest days of Mormon history, individuals were encouraged to seek a spiritual confirmation, a personal testimony and revelation concerning the truthfulness or falsity of Mormon doctrines. This testimony, witness and revelation would be spiritual and emotional in nature: it might manifest itself a a sense of peace and confidence, accompanied by new and deeper insights.
But such an experience can only be trusted and relied upon if one has honestly considered, examined and pondered all the evidence that one has available. The following passage from “The Book of Mormon” explains the early Mormon approach to seeking such a revelation:

“Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (“The Book of Mormon,” Moroni 10:3-5)

Even after such an experience, one must seek and be open to further insights, knowledge and revelation. As existence is eternal—without beginning or end—no intelligent being can ever reach the point when he or she knows everything. Revelation is merely one part of an eternal process of growth, development, evolution and progress.

THE ROLE OF STUDY IN THE FIRST MORMON REVELATIONS

Personal revelation as a means of obtaining knowledge was central to early Mormonism as is illustrated in the following Mormon scripture:

“You [may] receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge... Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation..” (“The Doctrine & Covenants” 8: 1-3)

However, the very first Mormons—largely uneducated, struggling frontiersmen and women with backgrounds in Pentecostal revivalism and folk-magic—expected revelation to come by supernatural means, without the need for any intellectual or rational effort or preparation. One of Mormonism’s earliest leaders—Oliver Cowdrey—approached revelation in this way.

Cowdrey was practitioner of folk-magic; he believed in the magical powers of divining rods and peep stones. When his attempts to receive a supernatural revelation by these means failed, Joseph Smith dictated the following Mormon scripture to him:

“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” (“The Doctrine & Covenants” 9:7-9)

STUDY AS A PREPARATION FOR FAITH AND REVELATION

Coming from the Christian revivalist traditions of the American frontier, early Mormons were anxious to the experience the type of mass Pentecostal revelatory experience recorded in the New Testament book of Acts. They believed that if they built a temple to God in Kirtland, Ohio and prepared themselves, such Pentecostal revelations were possible.

Early in his career, Joseph Smith encouraged such expectations, but unlike many of his fellow Mormons (perhaps the majority of them), he was not comfortable with leaving the intellect out of the process. Having spent most of his youth attending revivals, he was distrustful of the extreme emotionalism that manifested itself at such gatherings. He knew that even though emotions could result in passionate professions of faith, such feelings could not be sustained indefinitely. He later commented on the tendency of most people to return to their old ways once such Pentecostal fervor and emotionalism had subsided and they returned demands of every day life.

Wanting Mormons to have a more substantial revelatory experience--one with longer lasting effects—Joseph Smith and fellow Mormon leader Sydney Rigdon founded a seminary in Kirtland, which they called “The School of the Prophets.” The purpose of this school was not only to prepare Mormons for missionary service, but also to prepare them to receive revelations once the first Mormon temple was finished and dedicated.

The following scripture, recorded on December 27, 1832, presented reading, studying and the pursuit of an education as necessary components in preparing to receive revelation:

“Therefore, verily I say unto you, my friends, call your solemn assembly, as I have commanded you. And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God…” (“The Doctrine & Covenants” 88:17-19)

I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnifythe calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you. (“The Doctrine & Covenants” 88:77-80)

As Joseph Smith’s theology evolved, he would put more and more emphasis on education and learning. This education would not be confined to religious subjects only, but to secular knowledge as well. In fact, one of the unique aspects of Joseph’s later theology was that the lines which had traditionally separated sacred knowledge from secular knowledge disappeared. Within a few years of Mormonism’s birth, Joseph was encouraging his fellow Mormons to “…study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages tongues, and people.” (See “The Doctrine & Covenants” 90: 14-15)
WISDOM AS CO-ETERNAL WITH GOD

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men liberally…”

This verse from the first chapter of the Epistle of James is known to Mormons of all denominations. In his later writings, Joseph Smith would trace the origins of Mormonism to his reading of this verse as a teenager. For Mormons, revelation is not an end in itself, but a means by which greater knowledge and wisdom can been obtained.

This reverence for wisdom comes from Mormonism’s roots in Biblical tradition. Ancient Israelites revered Wisdom highly—so highly, in fact, that the author(s) of Proverbs envisioned Wisdom as being co-eternal with God, as being God’s Divine Female Consort:

“It is wisdom calling,
Understanding raising her voice.
She takes her stand at the topmost heights,
By the wayside, at the crossroads,
Near the gates at the city entrance;
At the entryways, she shouts,
“O men, I call to you;
My cry is to all mankind.
O Simple ones, learn shrewdness;
O dullards, instruct your minds.
Listen, for I speak noble things’
Uprighteness comes from my lips.
All my word are just,
None of them perverse or crooked;
All are straightforward to the intelligent man,
And right to those who have attained knowledge.
Accept my discipline rather than silver,
Knowledge rather than choice gold.
For wisdom is better than rubies;
No goods can equal her….

When God fixed the foundation of the earth,
I was with Him as a confidant,
A source of delight every day,
Rejoicing before Him at all times,
Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
Finding delight with mankind.
Now, sons, listen to me;
Happy are they who keep my ways.
Heed disciple and become wise;
Do not spurn it.
Happy is the man who listens to me.
Come early to my gates each day,
Waiting outside my doors.
For he who finds me find life, ‘
And obtains favor from the LORD.
But he who misses me destroys himself;
All who hate me love death,”
(Proverbs 8:1-11, 29-36, JPS Translation)

In some Jewish and Christian esoteric traditions, Wisdom (Sophia) is seen as the Divine Female Principle, as something of a Goddess herself. Such ideas do not seem strange to Reform Mormons who accept the Mormon doctrine of a Heavenly Mother—a Goddess—who is an eternal companion of their Heavenly Father. (Reform Mormons are free to pray to Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Father or to both—as “Our Heavenly Parents.”) God can be revealed in the feminine as well the masculine.

THE REVELATION OF GOD

In Mormonism, as in most other religious traditions, revelation is also the means by which the Divine is made manifest to human beings. Mormon history and myth is filled with stories of men and women who claimed to have had visions of God.

Toward the end of his life, Joseph Smith began teaching that people “learn to be Gods” themselves. Pointing out that in the Biblical creation myth, Adam was said to be made “in the image of God,” Joseph reasoned that man/woman was in fact the same type of being as God. Because God and humans share a common nature, Joseph reasoned that all Gods had once been humans like us, and that all humans, by nature, could grow and progress until they too were Gods.

Within this theological paradigm, Reform Mormonism teaches that the most profound revelation of the Divine can take place within the individual. As each of us progresses and grows in knowledge and virtue, the character traits that we envision God possessing, are revealed within our own characters. We can become more Godly; we can develop the attribute of Godliness. As children grow up and become like their parents, the realities of adulthood are revealed to them. In the same way, Mormonism teaches that every human being is a child of God. As each of us pursues a path of growth and eternal progression, we can become more like God; through this growth, the realities of Godliness and Divinity may be revealed to each of us.

Concerning this type of growth and progress, early twentieth century Mormon theologian, Nels L. Nelson, wrote the following:

“The only conception that any people can possibly have of Deity, is one which comes within their mental horizon—the horizon bounded by their experiences. Into His personality they will think their highest and noblest ideals. What they love most, fear most, admire most, will somehow be found in his attributes. To the extent and in the direction, that they are civilized and enlightened, to that extent and in that direction will He be idealized.
“It was therefore a profound remark of [Jesus], that to know God is to have eternal life. No one can know Him, save as he becomes like Him…
“…But becoming like Him implies a progressive means of getting ideas about Him…
“…To know God is to have adequate notions of His personality in, say, five different aspects: physically, intellectually, socially, morally, and spiritually. Manifestly these notions can come to man only as God reveals them. The germ ideas respecting His personality can be found in scripture; but these are meaningless, save as man thinks into them the content of his experiences. The real revelation of God to man is, therefore, to be found in that which gives man experience: in life—nature—law.
“If a man would have the noblest ideal of God’s physical personality, let him master all that is known of physiology and hygiene—and conform his own life thereto; if he would realize His intellectual personality, let him become familiar with the elements of intellect in man, then calculate what must be the Intellect that could create and control a solar system, with all the myriad forms of life and being therein manifested; if he would know God’s social personality, let him study sociology, determine what qualities in man lead to love and harmony: in the home, in the state, in the nation, in the world,--and then consider that God has so mastered these laws that heaven (ideal social harmony) is His eternal habitat; and so of God’s moral and spiritual personalities: to the extent that man discovers and lives moral and spiritual law,--to that extent he will know God.
“It follows therefore from the very nature of things, that the honest man’s conception of God is a progressively growing ideal. As, day by day, he discovers law (truth), and especially as he conform his life to law (obeys truth), so must his ideal of the Ordainer of law change; and let not ecclesiastics presume to lay an embargo on his soul, by pronouncing once for all what God is or is not.”

(Nels L. Nelson, “Scientific Aspects of Mormonism,” pp.18-20. [1904])

THE THIRD COVENANT

The third covenant made during the Reform Mormon Endowment is to seek divine counsel; to seek to develop wisdom and, as a result, to continually try to make better decisions in one’s day to day life.

THE SECOND COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

2007-06-16T14:38:00.000-07:00

The following is the next in our series of lessons dealing with the Reform Mormon Endowment. This lesson deals specifically with the second of the four covenants administered in the Endowment. Unlike other Mormon traditions, Reform Mormonism does not require a special Temple Recommend or some proof of “worthiness” in order to celebrate the Endowment. Anyone sixteen years of age or older who identifies him or herself a Reform Mormon, who understands the covenants and is willing to enter into them, may participate in the ordinance. Currently the Endowment is presented in spaces temporarily set apart and dedicated for the ordinance, during special “Temple Events.” If you would like more information on having such an event in your area, write us at: reformmormons@aol.com or reformmormons@yahoo.com

THE SECOND PRINCIPLE OF REFORM MORMONISM:
KNOWLEDGE

Each of the four covenants administered in the Reform Mormon Endowment is related to one of the Four Principles of Reform Mormonism. The second covenant is related to the principle of Knowledge.

Often many other religious traditions have looked upon human knowledge with suspicion. Many teach that the only knowledge which benefits the individual is mystical knowledge or knowledge from some supernatural sphere or realm

But Mormonism—born on the American frontier of the early 19th century—developed an opposite view. Knowledge and understanding were linked. Even early Mormonism’s claims of supernatural revelation had as their objective increasing one’s understanding regarding the nature of God, humanity, the past, the earth and the solar system—knowledge that would benefit people not only in “eternity” but also in this “temporal sphere” of life on earth. By the mid-1840’s Mormon theology had more or less dismantled the wall that had traditionally separated the profound from the mundane, the eternal from the temporal, the sacred from the secular, and the human from the divine.

In the new vision presented by Mormonism, the “Truth” was not mystical, arcane or otherworldly. Mormon scripture defined “Truth” in much the same terms as any secular dictionary might define the word: “Truth is a knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:24)

Mormonism became unique in that religiously speaking “Truth” became an individual’s knowledge of existence itself.

Armed with knowledge, individuals are free to use their agency (Free Will) to decide what their values should be, what actions they should take and how they should live their lives. In the process, mistakes will be made; wrongs will be committed—both intentionally and unintentionally.

What does one do when one is guilty of wrong-doing?

EARLY MORMONISM’S CHANGING THEOLOGY OF
ATONEMENT AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

As is evident from reading “The Book of Mormon,” Joseph Smith (the First Mormon) initially put great emphasis on the traditional Christian doctrines of repentance and faith in the Atonement of Christ

This doctrine teaches that Christ had to suffer, spill his blood and die on the cross in order to atone for the sins and mistakes of the individual. Only by exercising faith in Christ’s “sacrifice” could one escape eternal damnation.

At this early point in Mormon history, God was envisioned in a traditional Christian way: God was all powerful, holy and righteous. Being just, He could not tolerate in His presence anyone who was not completely pure and holy. Thus even the most common human shortcoming or weakness rendered an individual unworthy to enter God’s presence. Indeed, the supposed human inclination toward sin meant that all humanity was doomed from ever being united with God. In this regard, the majority of “The Book of Mormon” teaches the well-know doctrines of 19th century evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity.

This stark, negative view of humanity within early Mormonism not only changed during the first decade of the movement’s history, but had been completely discarded by the mid-1840’s. Toward the end of his life, instead of teaching that God’s holiness required that He damn humans for their frailty, Joseph Smith was teaching, “God is much more liberal in his mercies than we imagine,” and “what is wrong in one circumstance, may be—and often is—right in another.”

Even as the first edition of “The Book of Mormon” (with its Evangelical sermons on the damnation awaiting those who rejected Christ’s atoning sacrifice ) was coming off the printing press in preparation, Joseph Smith began to change his ideas regarding the subject.

In a “revelation” to Martin Harris, written in March of 1830, Joseph began teaching that Christ suffered so that others would not have suffer to if they repented. If they did not repent, then they would have to suffer punishment for their sins. According to Joseph’s evolving vision, this suffering would take place in eternity in a place where punishment (“torment” and “damnation”) were being eternally administered. However, once an individual had finished suffering for their sins in this place, they would be released to a state of salvation. (See “Doctrine & Covenants” 19:1-21) Like his father and paternal grandfather, Joseph Smith embraced the 19th century Unitarian doctrine of universal salvation. As is evidenced in Joseph’s famous “Vision” of the Three Degrees of Glory (published as Section 76 of “The Doctrine & Covenants”), Mormonism rejected the orthodox Christian concept of Hell and eternal damnation very early on in it’s history, and instead taught that all humans being would, in the end, enjoy eternal salvation. Eventually Joseph would teach that the word “Hell” was merely the English translation of the Hebrew word “sheol,” and that rather than a place of damnation, torment and suffering, it signified nothing more than “the spirit world” that awaited all humans after death.

In his March 1839 “revelation,” Joseph explained that Biblical references to “eternal damnation” and “endless torment” were not to be taken literally, but that they were merely literary devices meant to “work upon the hearts of the children of men.” (Doctrine & Covenants 19:7)

In other words, Joseph, in his early 20’s, thought people needed to be frightened into doing what was right; that the threat of eternal punishment was an effective incentive to live ethically. Since Joseph had spent his teenage years attending Evangelical revivals and as an active member the debating club of the local Methodist church in Palmyra, it’s understandable that he would think this way. However, in the coming years his ideas would change dramatically, evolving to the point that he rejected “fire and brimstone” preaching and scare-tactics. In his 30’s, Joseph often bragged that his approach to governing was to “teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves.”

The views expressed in the March 1830 revelation—that one was not damned or tormented forever, but merely long enough at atone for one’s own sins--was a major departure from orthodox Christianity and from the doctrines laid out in the then forth-coming “Book of Mormon.” Not only was the traditional doctrine of damnation and Hell dismissed (albeit in secret at that point; in verse 21, Joseph told Martin Harris not to show the revelation or its contents to anyone, but to continue preaching repentance)—but the revelation also has implications regarding the traditional doctrine that someone else (Christ) could by proxy suffer for the consequences of another’s wrong doings and mistakes.

Throughout the 1839’s and into the 1840’s, Joseph moved farther away from the traditional Christian doctrine of Atonement, placing more and more responsibility on the individual. By the end of Joseph’s life, he had moved Mormonism beyond Christianity altogether. In his last great sermon (The King Follett Discourse), he did not teach that “salvation” came through Christ or through an Atonement of any sort. Instead he taught “Knowledge is what saves a man….and you have got to learn to be gods yourselves, the same as all gods before you have done.”

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ACTIONS:
JUSTICE AND ATONEMENT

Needless to say, humans are not infallible. Even when going into a situation armed with proper knowledge, we may ere. We are often blinded by prejudices and preconceived notions; emotions may get the best of us; judgments made may simply be wrong, and actions taken may result in suffering.

At such times, the ethical thing to do is to assume full responsibility for one’s actions; to acknowledge that one’s choices and actions—regardless of intentions—hurt others and caused harm; to try to make amends, and to learn from one’s mistakes. The past can not be changed—even by a divine act of atonement--but one can always “own up” to the role one played; one can try to relieve any suffering that one may have caused others. In such a case, it would be forgiveness from those whom one has wronged—not forgiveness from God--that one would seek.

From the Reform Mormon perspective taking full responsibility for one’s actions and willing suffering their consequences is in itself godly behavior, This is maturity in action; it is moving beyond the childish stage of either assigning blame to others for one’s action or wishing that someone else could “take the lickin’” for one’s mistakes.

In recent decades, other Mormon traditions—especially the LDS Church—have returned to the evangelical theology of “The Book of Mormon,” insisting that salvation comes only through accepting the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. To illustrate this idea, a particular modern parable—“He Took My Lickin’ For Me”—has become very popular in LDS Mormon culture.

The story is set in a 19th century school house where the breaking of rules is punished with a whipping (“a lickin’.”) One little boy breaks one of the rules. The teacher explains that in order to be perfectly fair and just, punishment must be administered because the rule was broken. The guilty child is, of course, repentant (out of fear if nothing else) and dreads that fact that now he must be whipped. Feeling sympathy for the guilty boy, another student—who is kind, obedient and never breaks any rules—comes forward and offers to receive the whipping from the teacher so that the guilty boy might be spared the pain. The parable ends with the guilty child feeling a deeo sense of gratitude and loyalty to the righteous student who “took my lickin’ for me.”

This parable is supposed to show how perfect justice and righteousness requires punishment when humans fall short of being perfectly righteous. Supposedly this maudlin little tale explains how—in the eyes of a perfectly just God—an innocent person can suffer and atone for the mistakes and wrong doings of someone else.

But in fact, many intelligent, ethical people would be horrified by this idea, and would think it a grave injustice if someone else were to suffer the consequences of his or her wrong-doing—even if the person who suffered did so willing.

If someone was found guilty of murder, would justice be served if an innocent person—motivated by his or her sincere love for the murderer—volunteered to serve the convicted murderer’s sentence so that he might go free? Few rational people would advocate such a thing because it would seem to be a travesty of justice. Yet in principle, this is the idea inherent on the traditional doctrine of the Atonement.

Such acts of supposed “atonement,’ in fact, do nothing but increase the injustice of the situation—for yet another innocent person suffers needlessly. In the end, such “atoning” acts do nothing to alleviate guilt. In fact, feelings of guilt, shame and unworthiness on the part of the person who committed the original mistake or wrong doing are only increased.

Though the situation may be painful and difficult, ethical maturity and spiritual growth can only come about when individuals take full responsibility for their own actions and take their own “lickins’”—meaning, accepting the consequences of their actions.

VALUES

Each individual, using the knowledge he or she possesses, will formulate personal values. Each of us, based on our understanding, will decide that certain things have greater value to us than others. Values can not be faked. Other cannot force us to value something against our will. Each of us will perceive reality as we do, until such a time as our minds, by virtue of experience and/or reason, are changed. Values, then, cannot be dictated through commandments—either man-made or divine. The eternal intelligence of the individual remains always a free agent, forever self-governing.

Unhappiness and tragedy usually result when our actions are out of harmony with our values. This is often the case when individuals have one set of internal values (their real values) but set them aside because society, some person, institution or church tells them that such values are sinful or wrong. Out of fear of damnation, rejection or loneliness, people will often externally embrace values dictated by others while struggling to ignore, deny or “overcome” their true, internal values.

But if one accepts the primacy of existence (that the universe is what it is, and that one’s ideas regarding it nature must be consistent with reality), if one respects the agency (Free Will) of others, and if one remains open to the fact that there is always something new to learn, that there is an eternity of knowledge yet to embarced —if one approaches life and ethics in this way, then one can find happiness by embracing one’s true inner values and acting in harmony with them. If one makes mistakes in the process, that in itself becomes a learning experience in which new knowledge is acquired which then alters one’s view of things and thus, changes one’s values.

Having values is a constant; the exact nature of those values will change according to what we learn through our choices, actions and experiences.

If one thinks of one’s highest values as a light, when one follows that light, eventually greater light will be revealed. This is nature of progression.

THE SECOND COVENANT:

VALUES, INTEGRITY & RESPONSIBILITY

The second covenant of the Reform Mormon Endowment is to always make choices that are in harmony with one’s values, to accept the consequences of one’s choices and to honor one’s commitments.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How have your values changed over the years?

2. What role has knowledge (your understanding of things) played in the formation of your values?

3. What has resulted when you have made commitments that were out of harmony with your real values?

4. Have you ever made commitments based on limited knowledge? What happened when you learned “the whole story?”

5. How can failures, mistakes and accepting responsibilities for harmful actions aid in one’s maturity, spiritual growth and progression?

THE FIRST COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

2007-05-28T17:30:00.000-07:00
The following in another in a continuing series of lessons on the Reform Mormon Endowment. This lesson and the three that follow it will focus on the four covenants made in the Endowment.

WHAT IS REQUIRED:
PRIOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COVENANTS

The Endowment has traditionally been the ordinance in which Mormons make their most sacred covenants. The number of covenants made, as well as their nature, have changed over the past century and half; there have also been majors differences in the covenants as administered within the various denominations and sects of Mormonism.

One thing has been the same in nearly all Mormon denominations: the exact nature of the covenants is not disclosed prior to participating in the Endowment. Though Mormon organizations such as the LDS Church, in its Temple Preparation classes, may touch upon basic principles related to the covenants that will be made, the exact covenants themselves are not disclosed. Because of this, LDS Mormons usually enter their temples with no idea of what exactly they will be asked to commit to. Often a great number of LDS Mormons will admit to having reservations about making the covenants once they are fully explained during the course of the Endowment, but being in the middle of the ceremony for the first time, they make the covenants any way.

The Reform Mormon tradition varies greatly from LDS and FLDS Mormonism with regard to covenants. In the Reform Mormon Endowment there are only four covenants that are made, and each of these is related to one of the Four Principles of Reform Mormonism: faith, knowledge, revelation and restoration.

As explained in previous lessons here, these covenants are presented within the context of a symbolic interactive drama depicting the Adam and Eve myth. The covenants are administered in connection with symbolic signs (hand gestures) that are in effect visual symbols related to the Four Principles. These symbolic signs are ceremonial elements that are used only during the course of the Endowment.

However, in accordance with Reform Mormon philosophy, it is believed that each individual should know the exact nature and content of the four covenants made prior to celebrating the Endowment.

At the outset of the Endowment, Reform Mormons undergo a symbolic washing and anointing, indicating that they are leaving the outside world and the cares of every day life behind them and entering into a sacred space. However, prior to this portion of the ordinance, those gathered for the Endowment are given the following bit of instruction regarding the four covenants/obligations that will be made during the course of the ceremony:

“The obligations are serious commitments; covenants between you and God. They should be made thoughtfully, and with serious intent. They are designed to aide you in life, and to bring you joy. However, if you are not familiar with the covenants you will make, or are not prepared to make the covenants, as you understand them, do not proceed to receive your washing.”

In other words, unlike other traditions within Mormonism, prior knowledge and understanding of the covenants is essential. In fact, understanding the covenants and being willing to make them is the only qualification for celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment. The “worthiness” interview administered by the LDS Church (in which one must prove that one supports the LDS leadership, that one gives ten percent of one’s income to the LDS Church, and that one abstains from drinking, smoking and sex outside of a legal marriage) has no place within Reform Mormonism.

Understanding the four covenants and having a willingness to make them is what qualifies one to celebrate the Reform Mormon Endowment.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

If you experienced the Endowment in other Mormon traditions, did you feel fully prepared for the ordinance? Did you feel secure in your understanding of the covenants you would be asked to make? How did this understanding--or the lack of it--effect your experience?

LOVE OF GOD

The first covenant made in the Reform Mormon Endowment is to love God
with all of one’s heart, might, mind, and soul.

The wording of the covenant hearkens back to the ancient Israelite commandment found in the Hebrew Bible:

“ Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart. and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)

This concept also became central to Christianity as is evidenced in this story of Jesus, found in the Christian testament:

“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him [Jesus] a question, tempting him, and saying, ‘Master, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’“ (Matthew 22: 35-40)

The concept was central to early Mormonism, as is evidenced in the following revelation that Joseph Smith authored on August 7, 1831:

“Wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, saying thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength.” (Doctrine & Covenants 59: 5)

DISCUSSION QUESTION

Carefully re-read the above passages of scripture. While most people would tend to see love as a virtue, is it something that can be commanded? Why or why not?

DO HUMAN EMOTIONS RESPOND TO COMMANDS?

When one considers the entire quote from Deuteronomy, one might be conclude that even the authors of that book did not believe that love could be commanded. If loving God was as simple as merely obeying a command to love Him, then why the additional commandments to talk about that love throughout the course of one’s daily activities, to write down the commandment and post it on one’s front door--even to wear the words themselves as a “frontlet” between one’s eyes? It seems as if the ancient writers of Deuteronomy believed that one could force one’s self to love God if one constantly bombarded one’s consciousness with words of the commandment itself. To the modern mind this all looks like a primitive attempt at brainwashing--and an ineffectual one at that.

Since Christianity arose from Judaism, and early Mormon arose from Christianity, the idea that love could be commanded became part of both of these new religions.

The idea was founded on the central tenant of monotheism: one, all-powerful God created the human race. God has all power over humanity, and if they wish to escape His wrath, they will do as He commands. If God commands us to love him, then we better do so--or else! The principle involved here brings to a popular bit of satire often printed on T-shirts: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Of course, beatings cannot improve morale. And regardless of how powerful one believes God to be, love of God is not something that can be commanded or forced--no more than one can command a person to love someone else.

In fact, the entire Biblical narrative could be reduced to the following: An all-powerful God creates human beings in His image only to discover that because they are in His image, He is unable to control them. God wants humanity to love Him, but despite displays of anger and violence (the great flood, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues on Egypt), despite miraculous acts of salvation (parting of the Red Sea, the tumbling of Jericho’s walls), despite pleas and threats, God Himself is unable to control the human heart.

Individuals can only love God when they see for themselves the value of God; when they can comprehend and appreciate God’s traits as being virtuous according to their own understanding of what virtue is.

In the end, power has nothing to do with love. To love is to value, and humans by nature cannot be forced to value something or someone against the dictates of their own perception. As intelligent beings, we can only love that which we can understand and which we judge to be positive and good according to our personally held values.

WHAT KIND OF BEING IS GOD
...AND HOW DOES THAT EFFECT ‘LOVE OF GOD?’

Mormonism as a movement began in the late 1820’s as a defense of God’s power against the growing power of human beings. As a youth Joseph Smith seemed to sense that Enlightenment philosophy of natural rights, individual freedom, and reason over faith threatened the traditional Christian concept of one, all-powerful God. In writing “The Book of Mormon,” Joseph tried to reconcile much of Enlightenment philosophy with Christianity--and when he could not, he came down on the side of Christian orthodoxy.

But following the publication of “The Book of Mormon” and the founding of a church, Joseph’s natural curiosity regarding human nature and the Divine inspired him to continue searching, learning and rethinking his personal theology. Within a decade he began to completely reverse his youthful ideas regarding the nature of God. These reversals brought criticism upon him--not only from orthodox Christians (which criticism continues to this day), but also from many of his own followers.

By the end of his life, Joseph had completely rejected the idea that there was one all-powerful God who created all things. In his ground-breaking “King Follett Discourse,” in his “Book of Abraham,’ and in numerous writings that were published in later editions of his “Doctrine & Covenants,” Joseph Smith presented a new religion.

The central tenants of this new religion were that God was finite--bound by the laws governing time and space--and that the Divine and the human (Gods and humans) share a common nature. Joseph declared that the mind of man--”the eternal part”---was never created at all, but was “co-equal” with God. He taught that “God never had the power to create man” and that the very belief that God could create man, “lessens man in my estimation.” He went even further, teaching that the being humanity worships as God had once been human Himself, and that each of us must “learn to be Gods” ourselves. One aspect of human nature that Joseph championed above all others was the individual’s Free Agency (Free Will).

These distinctly Mormon principles became central to what religious historians have called “Classical Mormonism.” These distinctly Mormon principles are dramatized in the Reform Mormon Endowment, and it is in the context of these principles that the idea of loving God is presented.

LOVE OF GOD:
AN INDIVIDUAL’S RESPONSE TO DIVINE BENEVOLENCE

Drawing on the teachings of Joseph Smith, the Reform Mormon Endowment teaches that God’s work and glory is human progress and the exaltation of the individual. God is not presented as an powerful creator or as the “First Cause” of all things. Instead, God is presented as a loving, eternal parent, who wants His children (us) to grow up and enjoy all that He enjoys, but who also know that He cannot live His children’s lives for them.

Joseph Smith taught that “knowledge is what saves a man,” “the glory of God is intelligence,” and “a man cannot be saved in ignorance.”

In the dramatic portions of the Reform Mormon Endowment, God is depicted as directing human beings (symbolized in the characters of Adam and Eve) toward the knowledge that they need to progress and be happy. When Adam and Eve realize that God loves them, that He respects their agency, and is only concerned with their progress and happiness, they respond by expressing their love for God and pledging to love God always.

Love of God is not commanded. It is an individual’s honest emotional response to what he or she perceives as divine benevolence.

WHAT IS ONE LOVING WHEN ONE “LOVES GOD?”

Mormon scholar Terryl L. Givens has written that the outstanding characteristic of Mormon theology is that it “collapses the distance” between God and man, between the Divine and Human. In other words, the Human and the Divine became, more or less, one and the same in the Mormon scheme of things.

With that in mind, the individual could interpret the covenant to love God in several different ways--and all of them would be correct.

One could think of the covenant in a very traditional way: God is a personal being who has been gracious to you, and so in return, you feel love for God as tender, nurturing parent.

One could consider the covenant in light of the following: “As we now are, God once was; as God now is, we may become.” With this in mind, God could be seen as symbol human potential; love of God then becomes love for our humanity’s highest aspirations.

Orson Pratt (one of 19th century Mormonism’s most influential theologians and philosophers) said that he did not worship a personal God, but that he worshipped, revered and meditated upon “the attributes of God”--meaning the ideas concerning God’s intelligence, knowledge, virtue, justice, love, etc. Pratt taught that it these “attributes” were shared by all Gods, making them all one in purpose. Orson Pratt reasoned that by focusing on these “attributes,” the individual could learn to incorporate them into his or own character. With this approach in mind, the covenant to love God could be interpreted as a covenant to love those virtues and “attributes” that one associates with the Divine.

EVOLVING IDEAS REGARDING GOD & LOVE

Eternal Progression is at the heart of Reform Mormon. Change is one of the few constants in the universe. Throughout our lives, as each of us progresses in knowledge and understanding of our nature and of the universe in which we live and have our being, our ideas regarding God and love will change and evolve. When one first makes the covenant to love God, one may have very set ideas regarding the nature of both God and love. With time, these ideas will change. Indeed, if we grow and progress in knowledge, our ideas regarding those things should change.

Such change is a good thing.

It is the key to human happiness and fulfillment.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. In the past how have you interpreted the idea of “loving God?”

2. How have your ideas regarding “love of God” changed?

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

If this lesson gets you to thinking, please share your thoughts with our readership. Send them to:
reformmormons@aol.com

All view points and opinions are welcomed!

For more information on having the Reform Mormon Endowment presented in your area, email us at the above address. A document “Preparing for a Reform Mormon Temple Event” is now available.

THE USE OF SYMBOLISM IN THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

2007-03-31T15:50:00.000-07:00

The First Reform Mormon Endowment is now available and will be celebrated this year for the first time. For the next several weeks, our lessons will focus on the Endowment. The following is the second installment in this series of lessons. For more information on celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment ceremony yourself, visit www.reformmormonism.org, or write us to reformmormons@aol.com.

THE USE OF SYMBOLISM IN THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

The dictionary gives the following definition for the word symbol:

“Something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign…

....A word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized.”

The Reform Mormon Endowments are a series of highly symbolic ordinances which are celebrated by Reform Mormons as they reach various stages of their lives. Presented as interactive dramas, the Endowments include many types of symbols—most of which are derived from Freemasonry. (As explained in our previous lesson, Joseph Smith—the first Mormon—became active in Freemasonry during the last few years of his life. Inspired by the theatricality of Masonic ritual, he incorporated many of its elements in the Endowment ceremonies that he developed shortly before his death.)

Reform Mormonism philosophy, theology and ethics are all founded upon the distinct Mormon concept of Eternal Progression. In the 1800’s, this concept was summed up in the famous Mormon saying:

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”

Reform Mormons view life as part of an eternal process of progression, in which the individual, by virtue of his or her Free Agency (Free Will), and by virtue of gaining more knowledge and greater understanding, grows and becomes more like God. The Reform Mormon Endowments comprise a symbolic journey through life. Through the use of various types of symbols, principles are taught that can help individuals live happy, productive and meaningful lives.

Unlike other Mormon denominations, Reform Mormonism teaches that these symbols are human creations; they are not dictated by God, nor do these symbols, in and of themselves, confer divine authority, power or virtue. In other words, the Endowment ceremonies are not required to “get into heaven,” to “be saved,” or to please God. The importance of the symbolism in the Endowments rests solely with the individual. One may find many layers of personal meaning in the symbols or one may not.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. What has been the sole of symbols and symbolism in your religious life up until this point?
2. What is the advantage of viewing religious symbols are man-made versus taking these symbols as divinely mandated?
3. What can be some of the downfalls of taking symbols literally?

ADAM & EVE AS SYMBOLIC CHARACTERS

As in other Mormon traditions, the Reform Mormon Endowment is an interactive drama, a symbolic journey through life using the story of Adam and Eve. In the dramatic portions of the ordinance, there are three characters: Adam, Eve and God.

Contrary to the currents customs of many Mormon denominations, 19th century Utah Mormonism interpreted the Biblical accounts of creation, Adam and Eve and their so-called “Fall,” as being completely symbolic. Utah Mormon leader Brigham Young taught on many occasions that Adam was not “an adobe brick,” thus debunking the common assumption that he had actually been created from “the dust of the earth.” Young insisted that Adam and Eve were “created” in the same way, and upon the same principles, that all humans are “created”—meaning they were “born to parents.”

Reform Mormonism accepts this idea and builds upon it. The characters of Adam and Eve are just that: they are literary characters, not historical figures. They symbolize all human beings. Thus, as in earlier versions of the Endowment ceremonies, participants are told to think of themselves as if they were Adam and Eve.

In the various Utah Mormon traditions (the LDS and the FLDS churches), it is emphasized that Adam represents all males, and that Eve represents all females. Thus a central aspect of Endowment in those traditions, is mandating traditional gender roles. For instance, while Adam (meaning males) take an oath of obedience to God, Eve (meaning females) take an oath to either obey or “follow the council” of their husbands. This also reinforces the LDS and FLDS belief that heterosexual marriage is a legal requirement demanded by God Himself in order for the individual to become life God.

Within Reform Mormonism, there is not such oath because the genders are not seen as dependent upon one another. Eternal Progression is the result of individual initiative, learning and growth. Within Reform Mormonism, marriage—both heterosexual and homosexual—can be eternal, but it is for the purpose of companionship and personal happiness—not as mere obedience to some imagined divine legal system.

In the Reform Mormon Endowments, a man may portray the character of Adam and a woman the character of Eve—but if circumstances are such that two people are not available, a man may portray Adam alone or a woman may portray Eve alone. The characters of Adam and Eve—either together or separately—symbolize any and all human beings.

The third character in the Reform Mormon Endowments symbolizes God, or the Gods. As Reform Mormons openly accept the unique Mormon doctrine of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother, the character of God may be portrayed by either a man or a woman.

In the end, the meaning of the symbolism does not change because of the gender of the person or people portraying these symbolic characters.

Because the symbolic nature of the Garden of Eden story is emphasized, there is no danger of Reform Mormons mistakenly thinking that what they are seeing presented is a recreation of an actual historical event. In every sense, the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story as presented in the Reform Mormon Endowment is a symbolic journey through life, applicable to all human beings.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. If you have experienced the Endowment in other Mormon traditions, what was your reaction to the way the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story was presented? Did you take it symbolically or literally? What was the result of doing so? Was it positive or negative?
2. If you took the story as literal history, how did this affect your thoughts and feelings on such things as science, the Theory of Evolution, gender roles within the family and within society at large?
3. What is your reaction to the concept of taking the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story as being purely symbolic?

SETTING A SPACE APART FROM THE WORLD

In all Mormon traditions, the Endowment has been presented either in a special temple, or in a space that has been set apart and dedicated for that purpose. For instance, the first Endowment ceremony was presented in the attic storage room above Joseph Smith’s red brick store in Nauvoo, Illinois. The attic was decorated for the ceremony and then dedicated through prayer as a sacred space “set apart” from the rest of the world. After Joseph’s death, when construction of the Nauvoo Temple was completed, Brigham Young decorated the Temple’s attic floor and set it apart from the rest of the Temple as a sacred space in which the Endowment could be presented.

Reform Mormons do not currently build temples. Instead, any space that can accommodate the Endowment ceremony may be dedicated by prayer before hand, and set apart as a sacred space. Once the Endowment has been presented, the space may return to its normal uses.

SYMBOLIC WASHINGS AND ANNOINTINGS

Mormonism in the 19th century incorporated many elements of ancient Israelite worship in its ceremonies and ordinances. Chief among these was the practice of going through a washing and anointing of the body before entering a temple or dedicated space. According to the Bible, the ancient Israelite Priests were washed and anointed before entering the Temple or Tabernacle to perform religion ordinances.

In Reform Mormonism a symbolic washing and anointing is performed privately on each person before they celebrate the Endowment. This washing and anointing is done with the utmost modesty. Participants in the Endowment dress completely in white clothes of their own choosing. A white pancho-like covering (traditionally nick-named “a shield”) is placed over their clothing, to protect the clothes themselves. Using a few drops of water on the fingers of the person administering the ordinances, the participant’s body is symbolically washed and blessed. The participant then undergoes a similar ordinance of being anointed with oil, with a series of blessings being bestowed on the person.

Through this symbolic ordinance, the participant is blessed and set apart from the mundane routine of daily life, in preparation for celebrating the Endowment.

SIGNS AND TOKENS

Historically, the elements of Mormon Endowment ceremonies that have received the greatest attention—and criticism—from those outside of Mormonism have been the use of signs and tokens. These are also key elements in Masonic rites, and Joseph Smith lifted them right out of Masonic ritual with little or any changes at all.

WHAT IS A TOKEN?

What exactly is a token? The dictionary gives the following definitions:

1. something serving to represent or indicate some fact, event, feeling, etc.; sign: as in“Black is a token of mourning.”

2. a characteristic indication or mark of something; evidence or proof: as in “Malnutrition is a token of poverty.”

3 a memento; souvenir; keepsake: as in “ The seashell was a token of their trip.”

4. something used to indicate authenticity, authority, etc.; emblem; badge: As in “Judicial robes are a token of office.”

As explained in our previous lesson, a token in Medieval Masonic guilds consisted of a special secret handgrip or handshake that a mason would give to his foreman to communicate his level of training in stone masonry and thus his pay scale for work done.

With the development of Freemasonry during the Enlightenment, secret handshakes were developed as tokens of fraternity.

In the Endowment ceremonies of LDS of FLDS Mormonism, as series of Masonic-like handshakes are used as tokens or proofs that one has advanced through the various Priesthood offices of the church. Because the use of tokens is often taken literally within these Mormon traditions, critics have often attacked the LDS and FLDS Churches for teaching that one can only be admitted into heaven if one can give “secret handshakes.”

In the Reform Mormon Endowment, there is only one token and its purpose is completely symbolic. It represents nothing more than the individual’s spiritual connection to God and to others, and this symbol is used ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CEREMONY ITSELF. In other words, Reform Mormonism utterly rejects the mistaken notion that one’s progression is dependent on learning a particular handshake.

For thousands of years, human beings of all cultures have developed various handshakes and handclasps as gestures of greeting and goodwill. In the context of the Reform Mormon Endowment, the token is used to convey a feeling of goodwill towards and connection with God, with others and with the eternal aspect of all things—nothing more and nothing less.

WHAT IS A SIGN?

The dictionary gives several definitions, but what concerns us here in the use of sign in the context of religious ceremonies. The definitions that relate to this are:

…a motion or gesture used to express or convey an idea, command, decision, etc.: Example: “Her nod was a sign that it was time to leave.”

….to mark with a sign, esp. the sign of the cross.

…to obligate oneself by signature: Example: “He signed with another team for the next season.”

Many religions use symbolic arm and hand gestures as signs of devotion—the most famous being the sign of cross that Catholics and other Christians use in their worship and devotions. Within certain Christian and Jewish traditions, a minister, priest or rabbi may raise his arm and hand in a particular way when pronouncing a particular blessing on a congregation. Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians may raise their hands above their heads in certain ways as a symbolic sign that they are open and receptive to the Holy Ghost.

In the court systems of many nations, a person being sworn in as a witness may raise his arm to the square as a sign or symbol of his honesty and integrity.

Those celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment make a series of four covenants with God—each related to the four principles of Reform Mormonism: faith, knowledge, revelation and restoration.
When making each of these covenants, participants make a sign using their arms and hands. There is a different sign for each of the four covenants. (These covenants will be discussed at length in the next four lesson.) Just as a person in court use the right arm to make the sign of the square when “swearing to tell the truth,” so those celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment make certain signs while making the four covenants.

The universal symbol for Reform Mormonism is the drawing of the compass (a V shape) within a circle. The visual elements that make up this symbol can be rearranged to make two other symbols. Thus this one visual symbol actually contains four visual symbols. Each of these visual symbols is related to the principles of faith, knowledge, revelation or restoration.

The signs used in the Reform Mormon Endowment are physical representations of these visual symbols. Part of the instruction given in the Endowment is an explanation of how these visual elements can symbolize the four principles of Reform Mormonism.

Just as raising the right arm to the square symbolizes honesty, and just as making the sign of the cross symbolizes reverence for the death of Christ on the cross, so the use of these particular gestures—these signs—symbolize one’s commitment to the four principles of Reform Mormonism. These symbolic gestures are used only when celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment and within one’s own private devotions.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. If you have experienced the Endowment in other Mormon traditions, what was your honest reaction to the use of signs and tokens in those traditions?
2. What is your reaction to the use of signs and tokens in the Reform Mormon Endowment as explained above?
3.With regard to the use of signs and tokens, do you perceive a difference between the Reform Mormon tradition and other Mormon traditions?

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Feel free to share your opinions, ideas and insight. Send thoughts to:

Reformmormons@aol.com.
All views are welcomed!

THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

2007-02-24T18:25:00.000-08:00

The First Reform Mormon Endowment is now available and will be celebrated this year for the first time. For the next several weeks, our lessons will focus on the Endowment. For more information on celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment ceremony yourself, visit www.reformmormonism.org, or write us to reformmormons@aol.com.

“Jews have Bar Mitzvah, Catholics have Confirmation and Mormons have….the Endowment?” —“Newsweek,” 1990

Through the course of Mormon history, the Endowment has become the religion’s central ceremony.

While many assume that the ordinance has remained the same since Joseph Smith first developed it in the 1840’s, the truth of the matter is that the there have many versions of the Endowment over the past 150 years. While the form of the ordinance has remained fairly consistent (an interactive drama in which participants make a serious a commitments, done special clothing and learn a series of symbolic signs and token), the content and meaning of the ordinance has changed dramatically. Today there are as many different versions of the Endowment are there are denominations and sects within worldwide Mormonism.

The commitments (or covenants) which are found in the various Endowment ceremonies that now exist tend to reflect the values and the theology of the Mormon denomination presenting the ceremony.

For instance, in the Endowment ceremony presented in LDS Mormon Temples, the covenants center on obedience to commandments, the sacrificing of all that one has (“even one’s own life if necessary”) for the sake of the LDS religion, and consecrating all of one’s earthly belongings to the LDS Church for the sake of building “the Kingdom of God on the earth.” Since LDS Mormons believe that their church is “the only true Church,” the entire LDS Endowment centers on strengthening one’s connection to that organization, its leaders and program.

Among Fundamentalist Mormons, the Endowment is quite different. Since Fundamentalist Mormonism is focused on such practices as polygamy and separating one’s self from the world at large, the covenants made in their version of the Endowment reflect these concepts. Nineteenth century sexual mores, in which wives swear obedience to husbands, are featured. Other covenants emphasize separating from society at large and become part of a distinctly religious community.

In addition both LDS and Fundamentalists Mormons have a highly legalistic view of God and divine authority. Both groups believe that one must go through their Endowment ceremony in order to please God and enter into His presence in eternity. In short, you have to submit to their Endowment ceremony in order to “get to heaven.” So important is this belief, that LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons go through their Endowment ceremonies again and again on behalf of dead relatives and friends who didn’t submit to the ordinance while alive.

WHAT TYPES OF COVENANTS ARE FEATURED IN THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENTS?

The Reform Mormon Endowments are completely different in content and tone from the Endowment ceremonies of LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons.

Reform Mormons do not believe that any church or organization is—or can be—the “only true church.” Therefore obedience and faithfulness to a church or community have no part in the Reform Mormon Endowments.

Because Reform Mormonism teaches that all human beings are equal—regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation—the Reform Mormon Endowments contain no covenants regarding gender or sex roles. The concept of the individual is paramount throughout the ordinance.

Reform Mormons do not believe in a God who demands worship or obedience. Reform Mormons envision a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother who expect their children (us) to be rational, and who want us to live freely, formulating values for ourselves, acting in harmony with those values, and accepting the consequence of our actions. Within Reform Mormonism, obedience to commandments is not seen as especially ethical. Indeed, Reform Mormonism teaches that thoughtless obedience—even when directed toward God—can undermine ethics, values, morality and progress. Throughout life, one must constantly think for one’s self, ask questions and act with integrity in order to grow, progress and become more Godly.

Thus the four covenants in the Reform Mormon Endowments consist of:

—A covenant to love God, and to act in harmony with one’s values

—A covenant to continually seek after knowledge and to live to integrity.

—A covenant to always be open to further inspiration and revelation, and to seek a closer relationship with God and with others in one’s life.

—A covenant to always see the eternal aspect in all things: in others, in the world around one and in one’s actions.

The principles underlying these covenants make the experience of the Reform Mormon Endowment something quite different in tone and meaning from the Endowments presented by other Mormon denominations.

THE HISTORY OF THE ENDOWMENT

To understand the history of the Endowment, one must first have a basic understanding of Freemasonry. While many LDS theologians, historians and apologists deny any connection between Mormonism and Freemasonry (or else they downplay the importance of that connection), Reform Mormons freely admit that Joseph Smith borrowed freely from Masonic ritual as he developed the first Endowment ceremonies in the early 1840’s.

During the Middle Age, there was a building boom throughout Europe. Great churches and cathedrals were being built in England, France and Germany. Masons (those who labored in stone work and carpentry) were in great demand. But this was also a period in history in which most people were illiterate, unable to read or even write their names. Added to this was the fact that there was no common language throughout Europe.

Masons were allowed to travel freely throughout Europe looking for work. Guilds arose among the Masons. An illiterate Mason traveling from one country to another, being unable to speak the language of the country in which he was seeking work, would present himself to the foreman at the job site. He would then greet the foreman with a special sign (usually an upraised hand, with the fingers spread in a certain fashion) and special handshake—called a token. These signs and tokens were universal among European masons, but kept secret from others outside the guild. The sign and token was the way a mason in the Middle Ages could communicate to a foreman the level of his training in masonry. When it was time for a mason to be paid, he could also give these signs and tokens to the person issuing the pay at the work site. In this way, the person issuing the pay would know what the mason’s salary should be based on his level of training. Because the use of signs and tokens easily lent itself to fraud (a non-mason might go to a worksite and present himself as a qualified mason), and because a person’s livelihood was at stake, when one finished a level of training in masonry and was given the signs and tokens, he might also take an oath to never show those signs and tokens to anyone outside the guild, with his life being forfeited should he break that oath. Thus a tradition of rather gruesome and gory “penalties” developed among some of the guilds.

Centuries later, during the period of the Enlightenment, the symbolism of signs and tokens—as well as the concept of masonry itself—was taken by philosophers and thinkers and became the basis for what would become the world’s largest “secret society.” These philosophers championed reason, science, the arts and progress, as well as the liberty and rights of the individual. Just as the free masons of the Middle Ages worked at building beautiful new structures, these philosophers and thinkers saw themselves as building a new and better society. They created signs, tokens and penalities, and an elaborate symbolic interactive drama (centered on the building of Solomon’s temple) as the ceremony through which others might join their organization—the Freemasons.

Freemasonry was very popular in Colonial America. Most of the U.S. Founding Fathers and those who planned and lead the revolution against England were Freemasons. Masonic lodges were found in virtually every American town and hamlet. Many Revolutionary War battles were planned in the meetings of these lodges. Masonic symbolism was incorporated in the architecture, art and currency of the new nation. (Just visit Washington DC, or examine a U.S. dollar bill.)

By the 1820’s, Masonic lodges were the central meeting places for men in most U.S. towns and cities. Meanwhile American church membership was at an all-time low. In the mid-1820’s religious revivalism burst forth on the western frontier, and many revivalist preachers targeted Freemasonry as an enemy of the church.

Upstate New York—the region in which Mormonism was born—was ablaze with revivals…and with political intrigue regarding Freemasonry. Just a few miles down the road from the home of Joseph Smith’s family, a former Freemason who published a book revealing the organization’s secret ceremonies, disappeared. Though no one was ever convicted for his murder, it has generally been assumed that members of the local Masonic lodge abducted and murdered him, and then disposed of the body. Suddenly the most respected organization in America was seen as diabolical, anti-Christian and un-American.

Young Joseph Smith was caught up in the anti-Mason hysteria. When writing “The Book of Mormon,” he wrote against “secret combinations”—a code for Freemasons and their like.

However, by the early 1840’s when Joseph was in his mid-30’s and the mayor of the largest city in Illinois (Nauvoo), his attitude toward Freemasonry had turned 180 degrees.

The Mormons of Nauvoo founded the largest Masonic lodge in the state. The Mormon Temple under construction in Nauvoo was virtually no different from any large American church, but Joseph began incorporating Masonic symbolism into its design. Enthralled by the romance of the Masonic drama—which centered on the building of Solomon’s temple—Joseph took the elements of Masonic ritual (signs, token, penalties, the putting on of ritual clothing, an interactive drama) and began creating a new Mormon ordinance.

Called the Endowment, Joseph first administered the ordinance to his closest friends and relatives in the attic above his Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. He explained that when the Nauvoo Temple was finished, this Endowment ceremony would be presented in the attic level of the temple to other faithful Mormons.

Those who received the Endowment in the attic of Joseph’s store formed a special Quorum within Mormonism. In was to this small select group that Joseph first introduced his radical new ideas about the nature of God, man, matter and the universe. Through the Quorum, members expected to delve into “the mysteries of Godliness.” The symbolic signs and tokens were incorporated into the Quorums prayer meetings and study groups.

Joseph was murdered before construction of the Nauvoo Temple was completed. Even among members of the Endowment Quorum, there was disagreement on just how the Endowment ceremony should be incorporated into the life of the Temple and the Mormon community at large.

Following Joseph’s death, the Mormon community split among several people contending for leadership. The largest group followed Brigham Young—who was a member of the special Quorum. When the Nauvoo Temple was completed, Brigham Young and his Quorum of Twelve Apostles administered the Endowment to hundreds of other Mormons in the building’s attic. When not being used for the Endowment ceremony, the temple’s Celestial Room became a place where Endowed Mormons held feasts, celebrations and dances.

Several decades would pass before Brigham Young had a uniform version of the Endowment ordinance written down. Many historians now think that until that time, there may have been variations in the way the ordinance was presented in various Utah communities. The Endowment as it was finally written down probably reflected the beliefs and values of Brigham Young and the corporate LDS Church, as much as it did the original intent of Joseph Smith.

Until the early twentieth century, there were actually two Endowment ceremonies administered by the LDS Church. The first was administered earlier in life; the second was administered later toward the end of one’s life, in preparation for death. By the 1920’s, the LDS Church no longer administered the second Endowment to members generally. Today the LDS Church no longer makes it know that a second Endowment ever existed.

Throughout its history, the LDS Church has continually changed its Endowment ceremony to reflect its changing theology and organizational needs. The last major changes were introduced just two years ago (2005) in the Washing and Anointing portion of the ceremony. Previously, in 1990, the most sweeping changes in the Church’s history were introduced. The use of penalties was dropped altogether, as was the covenant which required women to “obey their lord—that is, their husbands.” In addition large dramatic sections that presented Christian ministers as servants of Satan were dropped.

HOW DO THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENTS DIFFER FROM LDS ENDOWMENTS?

Reform Mormons believe that all ordinances are human inventions. God does not institute rituals and does not demand that people submit to certain ceremonies.

This is the exact opposite of the way LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons view ordinances. Reform Mormons believe that any individual can lead an ethical life, progress and enter the presence of God in eternity (what other might call “going to heaven”) without any ordinances, rituals or religious affiliation whatsoever. Humans share a common nature with God; each individual is an eternal Free Agent, co-equal with God, and ordinances (or the lack of them) have no effect whatsoever on one’s progress.

For Reform Mormons, ordinances are the means by which we celebrate and commemorate our values and our vision of Deity, as well as our own potential. Through celebrating the Endowments, an individual—in the company of others who share his or her basic values—can express a formal commitment to those values.

Within Reform Mormonism there are four different Endowment ceremonies which are celebrated at various stages of one’s life.

The First Endowment is available to anyone aged sixteen or older. (Those under the age of eighteen must have permission of a parent or guardian.) Following Mormon tradition, this First Endowment is presented as an interactive drama, using the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as its basis. As explained above, the four covenants made in the this First Endowment have to do with love of God, the seeking of knowledge, being open to further inspiration and revelation, and seeing the eternal nature of all things.

The Second Endowment is available to Reform Mormons who are at least forty years of age, and have celebrated the First Endowment. The Second Endowment explores the principles underlying the four covenants made in the First Endowment, but from the prospective of someone who is older and are at a different stage of personal progression.

The Third Endowment is available to Reform Mormons who have celebrated the previous two and are sixty years old. The Fourth Endowment is celebrated later, in preparation for death.

The Reform Mormon Endowments use the symbolism of signs and a token, but there are no penalties. Unlike the LDS and Fundamentalist Mormon Endowments, these signs and tokens have not been lifted whole clothe from Freemasonry, and so the nature of their symbolism in relation to Reform Mormon principles and values is easily seen and understood.

As in other Mormon traditions, participants wear white clothing, but the donning of the caps, robes, sashes and aprons (borrowed from Scottish Freemasonry) are not part of the Reform Mormon Endowment.

While the LDS and Fundamentalist Endowments seem strange, mysterious, perplexing—and thus troubling to many, this is not the case with the Reform Mormon Endowment. The purpose of the ordinance is to inspire, to provoke deeper thinking regarding one’s own life, progression and relationship with God and others. The intent behind the ordinance is that it be beautiful and meaningful to the individual, presenting ideas and concepts that one can actually use in one’s every day life.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Have you experienced the Endowment as administered in other Mormon denominations? If so, how did the experience affect you? What elements inspired you? Were there elements that troubled you, or affected you negatively?

2. What has been the place of ordinances or rituals in your life?

3. What is your reaction to the connections between Freemasonry and the early Mormon Endowment?

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Feel free to share your answers to these questions with other. Simply email your answers to: reformmormons@aol.com. All views are welcomed. Your answers may be printed here and at the Yahoo Reform Mormonism Discussion Group.

NEXT LESSON: “The Value of Symbolism and its place in the Reform Mormon Endowments”

THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE: Living in an Increasingly Interesting World

2007-02-09T15:20:00.000-08:00
More often than not, “complexity” is thought of as something negative. People often lament the complexity of the modern world. Many say that they long to return to a simpler time, when life was less demanding and when things seemed easier to understand.

Individually we may look back longingly to some past chapter in our lives: our childhood, the first time we were in love, or those days when our children were young and our relationships with them seemed so simple. As a society we might think of some past time period as a more simple age in which right and wrong were more clearly defined, in which roles and expectations seemed universal and less open to change or debate. Human beings in general often look to some mythic past and dispensation as a time in which human nature was innocent, untainted and pure. The Garden of Eden story is an example of one such myth.

It’s completely understandable that we often wish we could return to a simpler time. Life increasingly puts greater demands on all of us. Our relationships with parents, spouses, lovers, children and friends seem to be in an eternal state of flux and change. With each passing year of life, standards and ideas that we previously considered eternal and unchanging are often challenged; in response, we make subtle alterations to our cherished notions of right and wrong until the day finally comes when we realize our notions have changed completely.

This process can leave us feeling exhausted—intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. Sometimes we find ourselves wishing and praying to be “restored” to an earlier, simpler, innocent and less complex life.

But if we could go back to a more simple state of mind, would we be any happier? What bit of hard-earned knowledge or wisdom would we be willing to give up?

A clue might be found in the often expressed sentiment, “If only I could go be young again, but know what I know now….”

We might long for restored youth and energy, for that sense of “anything being possible,” but few of us want the ignorance that is part and parcel of being young. As complex (and frustrating) as our current existence may seem, when the day is done most of us may be more content with this complexity than we imagine.

The Book of Mormon teaches that “there needs be opposition in all things.” Opposition is inherent in existence, in nature itself. Opposition was not created by God or any other power. The universe is a composite of millions of contrasting entities, each with its own nature. Opposition is simply a fact of life. It can never be completely overcome; it cannot be obliterated. Indeed, one of the outstanding concepts in early Mormon theology was the radical notion that if there was no opposition, there would be no existence; that the purpose of human existence—human joy—would be impossible without experiencing opposition in all things.

We are, each of us, an eternal intelligent being with a will of our own. We are, each of us, a free agent living in a universe that brims with opposition. This is not a bad thing; it is not a state from which we should pray for deliverance. It is only through embracing the opposition and complexity of existence that we can function as human being beings, thus growing and progressing in accordance with our eternal and uncreated nature.

Joseph Smith—the first Mormon—taught that the individual has a mind capable of understanding the universe in which he/she lives, moves and has his/her being. Joseph taught that the human mind was capable growing in knowledge, that “the day will come when you will comprehend even God.”

“Complexity” is not something to be lamented, but embraced and celebrated.

Mormon theologian John A. Widtsoe in his 1915classic book Rational Theology wrote:

“….in our universe, as we conceive it to be constituted, increasing complexity would seem to be the great resultant law of the operation of universal forces. This is the great law of nature, to which every living thing must conform, if it is to be in harmony with all other things…The law of increasing complexity is fundamental. Since man is constantly being acted upon and acting upon matter and energy, he must himself be brought under the subjection of the great law. That is, under normal conditions, he will increase in complexity. As man observes phenomena and reasons upon them and applies them he grows in knowledge. Where he formerly had one fact to use, he now has many. This is the essence of his complexity….the great law becomes a law of increasing power, of progressive mastery over the universe. For that reason, the law expressing the resultant of the activities of universal forces is often called the law of progression.

“The degree of a man’s growth or progression will depend upon the degree his will is exercised intelligently upon the things about him…the operation of the will, under normal conditions, adds power to man….the increasingly complex man grows in power and strength toward perfection, in an increasingly interesting world…

“Nature is inexhaustible in the possible number of inner-relations among matter, energy and intelligence. It follows, therefore, that man will forever be able to add knowledge unto knowledge, power unto power, or progress unto progress. This law of progression is the great law of the universe, without beginning and without end, to which all other laws contribute.”

What are your thoughts on Progression and Complexity. Share with with our readers. Email them to: Reformmormons@aol.com. All views are welcomed!

A the 2007 Reform Mormon Directory

2007-01-27T14:03:00.000-08:00
If you'd like to be listed in the Reform Mormon directory, email the following information by Jamuary 30th:

FIRST & LAST NAMES

CITY, STATE & COUNTRY in which you live

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS

Only those who are listed in the directory will recieve a copy via email on Feb. 1st.

If you're interested, send the above information to:

reformmormons@aol.com

COMPREHENDING GOD, COMPREHENDING OURSELVES

2006-10-22T15:25:00.000-07:00
Recently the front page of “USA Today” featured the following story on the results of a new Gallup survey:

“Forget denominational brands or doctrines or even once-salient terms
like ‘Religious Right.’ Even the oft-used ‘Evangelical’ appears to
be losing ground….Believers just don't see themselves the way the media and
politicians — or even their pastors — do, according to the national
survey of 1,721 Americans, by far the most comprehensive national
religion survey to date.

‘Written and analyzed by sociologists from Baylor University's
Institute for Studies of Religion, in Waco, Texas, and conducted by
Gallup, the survey asked 77 questions with nearly 400 answer choices
that burrowed deeply into beliefs, practices and religious ties and
turned up some surprising findings:

“Though 91.8% say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic
force, they had four distinct views of God's personality and
engagement in human affairs. These Four Gods — dubbed by researchers
Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — tell more about
people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than
the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red
state/blue state…Sociologist Paul Froese says the survey finds the stereotype that
conservatives are religious and liberals are secular is ‘simply not
true. Political liberals and conservative are both religious. They
just have different religious views.’

“’…The Four Gods breakdown is helpful if you are trying to understand
religion's impact on society by how people see themselves from the
inside, not by observations from outsiders,’ says John Green, a
senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

“…says Baylor's Christopher Bader, "you learn more about
people's moral and political behavior if you know their image of God
than almost any other measure. It turns out to be more powerful a
predictor of social and political views than the usual markers of
church attendance or belief in the Bible."

It should come as no surprise that a person’s image of God could serve as a key to understanding their character. For most people, their conception of God not only symbolizes their highest ideals, virtues and aspirations, but also plays a foundational role in their undesrtanding of existence itself—including their own nature.

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith—the first Mormon—laid out a radically new (and by the standards of traditional monotheism, completely blasphemous) vision of Deity. Though he admitted that this vision of Deity might cause controversy, he insisted that his purpose in presenting it, was to bring understanding to people---not merely an understanding of God, but more importantly of themselves:

“If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” (Joseph Smith, April 1844)

This is a very interesting statement given certain popular religious traditions. Common among these is the idea that God lives in one’s heart and that if one looks within one’s self one will find God. In other words, understand yourself and you will come to understand God—at least to the degree possible for human beings.

But Joseph taught just the opposite. Toward the end of his life, he rejected the above idea completely. In “The Doctrine & Covenants,” he wrote that the idea of a God who lived in one’s heart was an old sectarian notion and was false.

It seems as if Joseph, perhaps on an intuitive level, realized that if one referred to God as the basis for one’s understanding of existence, nature, the world and one’s own self—then one had to first understand exactly what one meant when using the word “God.” One’s definition of God could affect one’s view of everything else. It would also have a great influence on one’s understanding of one’s own nature, on what is ethical and unethical, and on the expectations that one has of one’s self.

For instance, if one believed that God was a powerful, supernatural being or force that created existence out of nothing, then one would view existence and the natural world quite differently from someone who envisioned God in a different ways.

If one was a Pantheist, believing that God existed in nature, then one might have a very different view of human technology (which often alters the natural environment of a particular place) from one who believes that humans are created in the image of God, with a Divine charge to “subdue the earth.”

If one was a monotheist, believing in one all-powerful Deity, one might have a very different view of a single centralized governmental power than a polytheist might have, who views existence as being divided into different spheres ruled by different gods. History itself seems to prove that this is true. Over the past two thousand years, monotheism has given the world church/states in which a single king or political entity ruled by divine right. On the other hand, ancient Greek polytheism—with it’s pantheon of gods ruling the various aspects of nature—gave the world democracy. Indeed, modern democracies and representative republics came into being when the polytheistic “pagan” philosophy and aesthetics of ancient Greece were rediscovered by theologians, philosophers and artists of the late Middle Ages.

It seems perfectly rational then to conclude with Joseph Smith, that “if men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” For this purpose, Joseph Smith delivered his famous King Follett Discourse.

The problem with “understanding God,” is that according to most religions, this was a human impossibility. God was nearly universally conceived as “the Creator of all things,” as “the First Cause.” God was viewed solely in terms of power, might, grandeur and mystery. With regard to humanity and nature, God was completely “other.” The human mind, being the creation of God, was, by its very nature, no more capable of comprehending the character and nature of God than a piece of pottery would be capable of comprehending the nature of the potter who made it. The very notion that a mere mortal could “comprehend” the Divine was itself decried as blasphemous.

And yet, Mormonism itself (even in its earliest years, when it was still an evangelical movement that mingled Christian doctrine with folk-magic and spiritualism) was born from the desire of individuals to somehow comprehend the nature of God, and to reconcile many of the values of the Christian past and the Enlightenment with the more rational, secular world of early 19th century America.

The desire to “know” rather than merely “believe” was the impetus for the growth and progress of early Mormonism. In the 1830’s that desire to “know” took on a decidedly fundamentalist bent: revelations opening with the words “Thus saith the Lord” were plentiful and were given on the most mundane subjects, from keeping church records to selling property.

But over its first decade, Mormonism changed radically. The desire to “know” became linked with ancient and archaic schools of belief, such as Jewish mysticism. Finally during the Nauvoo period, Joseph Smith, Parley and Orson Pratt and other Mormon leader began drifting toward philosophy, modern Biblical scholarship, rational thought and science for their “knowledge.”

Since Joseph Smith was murdered within weeks of delivering the King Follett Discourse, that sermon could be viewed as the crowning achievement of his quest to “know” and to “comprehend the character of God.”

The sermon became controversial (and remains controversial to this day) for many reasons; chief among them the very notion that human beings could actually “comprehend the character of God.” For Christians, Jews and Muslims, this is utter blasphemy. For many modern Mormons (perhaps for the majority) it is—if not blasphemous—at least unsettling to their religious sensibilities, which tend to be like those of their Evangelical and fundamentalist neighbors.

Yet one has only to turn to Mormon scriptures—for instance, to “The Doctrine & Covenants” 93:28, which promises that people could eventually “know all things.” Even more explicit in other sections of this same book was the promise that the day would come when people would comprehend even God.

As the recent gallop survey shows, regardless of whether people think that they actually comprehend God completely, most do have very definite ideas and beliefs concerning the nature of God, and these ideas and beliefs influence they way they see the world and the way in which they see themselves.

It is this last item that is of most importance. If human beings do not understand themselves, if they are ignorant of or clueless regarding their nature and their relationship to the world in which they live, then their lives may very well become jeopardized. How accessible is human happiness, if humans either remain ignorant of their nature or base their understanding of themselves on ideas derived from irrelevant traditions or superstitions?

Even in “The Book of Mormon,” Joseph Smith railed against those who lived in blind obedience to “the foolish traditions of their fathers.” In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph examined that central concepts of traditional monotheism—the doctrines on the nature of God—and lumped them in with these same “foolish traditions.” As he went on to demonstrate, the “foolish traditions” regarding the nature of God, were blinding the human race to the reality of human nature and undermining human progress.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

How have your ideas on the nature of God changed in your life time?

What events and experiences contributed to these changes?

How did these changes in your ideas concerning the nature of God effect your later decisions and actions?
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Share your thoughts, opinions and insights with our readers, by emailing them to:reformmormons@aol.com
All views of welcomed.

Since the concepts found in the King Follett Discourse serve as the foundation for much of Reform Mormonism, the next series of lesson will explore this sermon from beginning to end.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:

2006-09-09T13:51:00.000-07:00
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
Violence and Force in the Name of God

A decade ago, few people in the West world would have thought that the defining issue of the age would be freedom of religion. Since the Enlightenment, the nations of the West have moved in the direction of religious freedom, with less government involvement in matter of faith. Even in those European nations which still have official state churches and religions, the links between church and state have weakened. In fact, those nations with church states tend to have the least religious citizenry.

From its inception, the United States Constitution has guaranteed freedom of religion. The most famous betrayal of that principle can be found in the history of the Mormons.

On the one hand, 19th century America politicians and lawmakers saw Mormonism as Un-American because they considered it to be Un-Christian. Despite the US Constitution and statements to the contrary by American founding fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the American public still held firmly to the mistaken belief that the United States was “a Christian government.” The radically new theology of Joseph Smith--and many of those Mormon leaders who followed him--was seen as a blasphemous by orthodox Christian standards, and therefore a threat to the belief system that many Americans mistakenly assumed was the foundation of the Republic. Believing that Mormonism posed a grave threat to the nation, both the Federal government and the government of various states and territories passed laws against the civil rights of Mormons. In Missouri, Governor Boggs issued an extermination notice which legalized the murder of Mormons in that state. Decades later the state of Idaho and the Federal Government passed laws which denied Mormons the right to vote, serve on a jury or hold political office. Mormonism is unique among all religions, in that it is the only faith to be named as a threat to the nation in the inauguration speech of a United States president.

On the other hand, Brigham Young and the first generation of leaders who established the Mormon community in Utah, while giving much lip service to freedom of religion, established a theocratic shadow government to rule the territory. In addition to this, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball and other Utah Mormon leaders preached the infamous doctrine of Blood Atonement in the mid-1850s--which made certain religious heresies capital offenses punishable by death. (The current practice in Utah of execution by firing squad, is a relic of this era and doctrine.)

All of this led to an event which historians, until the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, considered the worst terrorist attack in American history: The Utah Mountain Meadows Massacre, which took place (ironically enough) on September 11, 1857.

At that time, the Federal Government was sending the majority of the US Army to Utah Territory to put down an imagined “Mormon Rebellion.” For their part, the Utah Mormons were caught up in the fanaticism of the Blood Atonement Doctrine and hysteria over the Government’s actions. When a large wagon train of non-Mormons traveling from Arkansas to California passed through southern Utah, a legion of Mormon men--acting under the direction of the Cedar City LDS High Council--attacked the wagon train, brutally shooting and butchering over one hundred innocent men, women and children. Only a few children under the age of eight were spared.

On the Reform Mormon liturgical calendar, September 11th is a day of remembrance on which Reform Mormons look back on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and ponder the attitudes and beliefs that led to this tragedy. Fully committed to the principle that every human being has a natural right to Free Agency, Reform Mormons decry any violence or use of force (including the force of law) in the name of religion.

Ironically enough it was on the 2001 anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre that America again experienced religiously inspired terrorism and violence. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, became the defining events of the current era.

While a “War on Terrorism” is the topic of current debate, the real issue really boils down to religious freedom. Does any government have the right to establish a religion to which all its citizens must submit? Does any government have the right to punish heresy?

These questions do not relate only to the current situation in Middle Eastern countries, or the threat these may have to Western nations: over the past two decades Americans themselves have become bitterly divided on questions of religion. Americans across the political spectrum support government actions to establish a number of various laws and programs which, when examined, are based solely on subjective principles of faith.

In the midst of this “war of words and tumult of opinion,” we might benefit from the following teachings of Joseph Smith.

Joseph himself was one of the most divisive figures in American history, and during his brief life was jailed numerous times for going against the religious mainstream. At the beginning of his famous King Follett Discourse (which serves as the basis for much of Reform Mormon thought), Joseph stood up for the individual’s right to freedom of religion and conscience, and decried all violence in the name of God.

Knowing that most Americans (as well as a growing number of Mormon leaders) considered him a false or fallen prophet, Joseph taught:

“If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood? And who would not suffer?

“But meddle not with any man for his religion: and all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested.

No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong.

Every man had a natural right, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God’s kingdom on earth, and was to kill then because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse, April 1844)

DISCUSSION QUESTION

1. Joseph Smith taught: “No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong.”

Is this principle accepted by most nations on earth today? Can you think of examples?

Is this principle consistent with the fact that many nations and governments have “state churches” or “official religions?” Why is it--or why isn’t it--consistent?

Can this principle be reconciled with the common assumption that America is “a Christian nation?” Why, or why not?

2. Joseph Smith taught: “Every man had a natural right, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet.”

What are your feelings and thoughts regarding this principle?

3. All law is the use of physical force (or the threat of physical force) to a particular end. If individuals have a natural right to freedom of conscience and belief, are laws establishing religions ethical? Why, or why not?

Share your answers, ideas and opinions, by sending them to”
reform Mormons@aol.com

COVERTING TO REFORM MORMONISM: Four Steps

2006-06-12T14:42:00.000-07:00
Progression! According to Reform Mormon, this is the purpose of human life.

Around the world, people are living longer, healthier, happier and more productive lives because of progress in ethics, science, technology, art, philosophy and other fields of human endeavor.

But if one studies history, one soon learns that nearly all of these advances were at first criticized by traditional religions. Those brave men and women who were on the forefront of progress were often labeled “heretics,” and criticized or persecuted for daring to “play God.” And yet with the passage of time it has become evident that their “playing God” has benefited the human race.

Reform Mormonism asks you consider a radical question--one that many might call blasphemous: What if “playing God” is actually a virtue?

Joseph Smith, the first Mormon, put it this way:

“….you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one.”

At first the very idea of learning to be a God probably sounds ridiculous. This is because traditional religions think of God in completely supernatural terms, attributing qualities to Him that defy reason: they claim that God created everything that exists from nothing; that God is present everywhere at all times; that He is now, has always been and always will be all-knowing and all-powerful, controlling all events. In fact, when all is said and done, the traditional concept of God boils down to one thing: power. God has all of it; human have none, and so they at God’s mercy.

Reform Mormonism rejects the supernatural. Nature is supreme. Against this background, Joseph Smith revealed a new vision of God:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…That is the great secret….if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man [or woman] in form….for Adam [and Eve] were created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God.”

The good news of Reform Mormonism is that in a deeper and more profound sense than you’ve ever imagined, you are a child of God. Whoever you are, wherever you, whatever you have done in the past, whatever your situation may now be--you exist in the image and likeness of God.

Your conversion to Reform Mormonism begins when you consider this radically new idea:

“As we now are, God once was.”

Reform Mormonism rejects the idea that human nature is inherently fallen and sinful.

Human nature is not something that one can repent of; to do that would be to apologize for having been born.

Human nature is not something that one should try to overcome; to do that would be suicidal.

The First Step in converting to Reform Mormonism is to accept human nature as your most profound link to God.

The experiences of life here on earth--whatever those experience may be--do not separate you from God. On the contrary, God was once like you, and understands everything you could possibly experience.

“As God now is, we may become.”

All children exist in their parents’ image. They have the potential to grow and become like their parents. In doing this, they take nothing away from their parents. No ethical father or mother is offended when their children follow their example and make an effort to become happy, productive adults. Far from it! Good parents take great pride in their children’s achievements! They are flattered when their children express a desire to follow in their foot steps. This is merely nature taking its course. Reform Mormonism proclaims that this same principle pertains to you and your relationship with God.

The Second Step in conversion is to realize that because you and God share a common nature, you also share a common destiny.

Growing up means learning to be independent from your parents. It means thinking for yourself, deciding what you do and do not value, making decisions and taking action and--most importantly--taking responsibility for your actions. No one can go through life blaming their parents for how his or her life has turned out.

And yet this is exactly what so many people do when they think of their relationship with God. It’s as if they think of themselves as puppets, with God pulling their strings and controlling every event in their lives. When something bad happens, they wonder why God allowed it to happen. When something good happens, they believe they’d better thank God for it or else He might punish them.

This way of thinking about God overlooks one very important thing: Every human being is free by nature. Each of us has Free Agency (Free Will). While other religions teach that you need to surrender your will to God’s will, Reform Mormonism proclaims something entirely different: God expects you to think for yourself. God expects you to be curious and to ask questions--not live by blind faith. God expects you to act for yourself and take responsibility for yourself. The good news of Reform Mormonism is this: God, like any good parents, wants you to become strong, self-reliant, independent and--above all else--happy.

Joseph Smith, the first Mormon, taught that it was God’s will that people be “free forever….to act for themselves and not to be acted upon.”

The Third Step in converting to Reform Mormonism is to embrace your Free Agency--your divine right to think for yourself, to act for your self and to accept the consequences of your actions.

You are not a puppet. You are not a pawn in some divine chess game. You are in complete control of your choices and your actions. It is God’s will that you have complete authority over your life. Being free, you create your own character; you determine what you will become.

The Fourth Step and final step in converting to Reform Mormonism is to make a personal commitment (a covenant) to emulate God.
This final step is completely private and personal. It is between you and God alone. It does not consist of joining any organization or church; it does not consist of going through a formal ritual, ceremony or ordinance.

To emulate God is to accept God as your example, to think of God as your Heavenly Father or Mother, and to commit yourself to progressing and becoming more like God.

This personal covenant with God can be made silently, or it can be expressed in a simple pray or vow. Here one’s example of such a prayer:

“Dear God, I accept that I exist in your image and
that you are my Heavenly Father (or Heavenly Mother,
or Heavenly Parent). As your child, I will look to you as an
example. From this time on, I commit myself to progressing
and becoming more like you. Amen.”

The exact words are unimportant. All that matters is that you accept the fact that because you are a child of God, and commit yourself becoming like God.

“I have said that you are gods;
all of you are children of the Most High.”
(Psalm 82:7)

IS HUMAN NATURE GOOD OR EVIL: The Reform Mormon Doctrine of Human Nature

2006-06-11T09:36:00.000-07:00
Is human nature inherently good or bad? It’s a question that theologians and philosophers have debated for thousands of years.

When we look at a newborn infant it’s very easy to believe that we‘re inherently good. After all, an infant is so helpless, so dependent--and little children are so trusting.

“No,” say most theologians. Human nature is fallen, sinful; man is selfish, proud, arrogant. War, intolerance, sexual depravity, man’s inhumanity to man--these things prove that human nature is basically evil.

If that’s true, then how do you explain the good things people do: acts of kindness, compassion and valor? Theologians say that any good people do is the result of God working through them; they insist that if left to our own devices, we’d gravitate towards evil.

Others philosophers take the opposite view--made famous in Anne Frank’s declaration, “I believe that people are basically good at heart.” Cruelty, hate, murder, sadism--these are the result of disease, mental illness or negative social influences.

But is that true? Watch those wide-eyed trusting little children at play. Even though society hasn’t had a chance to influence all that much, little children can be awful to cruel to one another at times. But surely they’re not all suffering from disease or mental illnesses.

Others say that it isn’t a question of being good or evil. Human nature, they say, is conflicted. We’re all caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between two opposing forces---between our spirit and our flesh, our minds and our bodies, our hearts and ours heads. The body, the flesh and the cold rational mind entice us to be selfish, sensual and cruel--while the spirit and the heart entice use to acts of selflessness, love and kindness. For thousands of years philosophers and spiritual leaders have said that we should strive to overcome our selfish physical desires, our materialism and the temporary concerns of life on earth--and instead focus on spiritual matters and on what awaits us once this life is over.

Most people seem to accept this last view. When they get caught up in the demands of every day life, they often feel guilty thinking that they’re not paying enough attention to God or spiritual matters. Many of us also feel awkward, insecure and ashamed of our sexuality because we’ve been conditioned to think of our bodies and our physical desires as being in conflict with what is spiritual and good.

So, is human nature good, evil or conflicted?

The good news of Reform Mormonism is that none of these ideas are true.

Reform Mormonism teaches, “The spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88: 15)
Any conflict between the body and mind, the spirit and the flesh, the heart and head is imaginary. Take away any one of these attributes and not only would you no longer be human, you’d no longer be alive. One philosopher put it this way: “The spirit without the body is a ghost; the body without the spirit is a corpse.”

Emotions and reason, spirituality and sexuality--none of these things can be separated from one another. All are a part of our nature; all are essential aspects of our soul--and none should be ignored, suppressed or sacrificed. We have to fully embrace them all if we’re to experience true and lasting joy.

Because the body and the spirit are the soul of man, Reform Mormonism teaches that “spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy; and when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93: 33-34)

What about that newborn infant? Is she inherently good or evil? The answer is neither one. She’s still an infant, too immature mentally or emotionally to think for herself; still too helpless and dependent on others to make choices or act on her own.

And that is the key to understanding the true nature of good and evil: both are the result of an individual’s choices and actions. If something isn’t a matter of choice, then it can’t be a sin.

And so the good news of Reform Mormonism is that human beings are “in their infant state, innocent before God.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:38)

And those little children at play--sometimes hitting, shoving and calling one another names--are they good or bad? Certainly hitting and fighting are wrong, but these are still little kids, emotionally and psychologically too immature to be held responsible for their actions. In a few years, they’ll begin to more fully understand how their actions effect others and then they can be held accountable, but for now--being kids--they, too, are “innocent before God.”

The good news of Reform Mormonism is that human beings are not by nature good, evil or even conflicted; they are by nature free.

Understanding that freedom, is the first step in understanding ourselves and the purpose of life.

REFORM MORMONISM: An historical persepctive

2006-06-10T19:25:00.000-07:00
Reform Mormonism traces its history to what may very well be the most unique, revolutionary and unorthodox sermon in American history.

The sermon was delivered in April 1844 at Nauvoo, Illinois. Built on what had been fever-infested Mississippi swamp land, Nauvoo had become, in less than five years, the largest and most politically powerful city in the state of Illinois.

The sermon was delivered by Joseph Smith, the founder and Mayor of Nauvoo. But long before he founded the city, Joseph had gained national attention as the founder of a new and distinctly American religious movement known as Mormonism.

Fifteen years earlier, Joseph had described the purpose and goal of Mormonism in this way:

“…if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them…” (“Book of Commandments” 4:5)

The mainstream churches of the day hardly thought a reformation was needed. Even though Joseph’s earliest teachings more or less reflected the Christianity of the American frontier, Joseph Smith and Mormonism were denounced by the mainstream churches. Due to the mob-mentality found in rural frontier communities of the day, the Mormons were often the victims of mob violence. Despite this, Joseph Smith continued to attract thousands of followers from across the United States, Canada and England.

Joseph Smith was unlike other religious leaders of his day. Though Mormons thought of him as a prophet, he was no preacher of doom and gloom--and he certainly looked nothing at all like the stereotypical Moses or Elijah. He was over six feet tall, possessed a powerful, athletic build and was described as “a fine looking man.” Good natured and out-going, he loved to wrestle. (One couple converted to Mormonism and moved to Nauvoo, then left the city and the faith the day they arrived when they found Joseph in a wrestling match with some other men in town.)

Growing up in the boom towns along the Erie canal in upstate New York, young Joseph Smith indulged in frontier folk-magic and spiritualism, and was fascinated with the folk-lore surrounding the origins of the Native Americans. In his late teens, his interests turned to religion: he joined a local Methodist debating club and became adept at debating theology. His religious ideas were also influenced by his father and grandfather--both of whom rejected many orthodox Christian doctrines in favor of Deism, Universalism and Unitarianism concepts.

In his early twenties, Joseph began publishing his ideas, presenting them to the world as modern scripture, equal in authority to the Bible and other ancient writings. But Joseph was far from a scriptural literalist or fundamentalist. When, after further study and prayer, his ideas regarding a particular doctrine changed, he would simply rewrite his previous scripture to reflect that change and then republish it.

And indeed, Joseph Smith’s beliefs and ideas did change as he matured.

After establishing a church in 1830, Joseph’s came under the influence of a Christian commune in Kirtland, Ohio, whose members were attempting to “restore” the primitive Christianity of the first century.

Christianity was not the sole influence on Joseph’s changing beliefs and philosophy. In Ohio, he founded what he called “The School of the Prophets,” and hired a rabbi to teach him and other Mormon leaders Hebrew and the tenants of Judaism--including elements of the Kabalah. In his early thirties, he became fascinated with Egyptology and developed a keen interest in the religions and gods of ancient Egypt. Through his involvement in Freemasonry, Joseph was exposed to the philosophy of the Enlightenment.

With all of these contrasting influences, Joseph Smith’s beliefs began to change dramatically. By the time he was in his mid-thirties, Joseph Smith was privately teaching a new theology to some of the highest ranking leaders of the Mormon community. Mormonism was on the brink of changing from a fringe Christian movement into a completely new religion.

In April of 1844, at an annual church conference in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith unveiled a new theology to the world.

He had been asked to deliver a funeral sermon in memory of a Mormon named King Follett who had died recently. This sermon became known as “The King Follett Discourse,” and in it Joseph taught ideas that not only contradicted the beliefs of most people, but also undermined many of his own earlier notions.

Joseph began his sermon championing religious freedom and the natural rights of man--going so far as to say than every individual “has a natural, and in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet.” He denounced all violence and bloodshed in the name of religion.

Joseph then denounced the central ideas of traditional monotheism, saying they were based in ignorance and superstition, and insisting that they “lessen man in my estimation.”

Joseph Smith rejected the doctrine of Creationism--considered by many to be the foundation of all religious thought. He taught that nature was uncreated and eternal, without beginning or end; that it was impossible for anyone--even God--to create something out of nothing.

Joseph declared that the individual exists literally in the image of God; that each of person shares a common nature with God and is “co-equal with God.”

While traditional religion preached dependence on God and submission to His will, Joseph taught, “You have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a greater one.” It wasn’t mere belief or faith, or a reliance on some supernatural force that would bring such growth. “Knowledge is what saves a man,” said Joseph. “The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge.” All minds “are susceptible of enlargement.”

Decades later, Joseph Smith’s brother-in-law would sum up his new theology in this way:

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”

By embracing such a positive view of human nature, Joseph Smith’s new religion was at odds with orthodox Christianity. Many in the Mormon community were appalled by his doctrines.

William Law (next to Joseph, the second highest ranking official in the church) along with other disaffected Mormon officials established a new newspaper in Nauvoo. “The Nauvoo Expositor” denounced Joseph as an “atheist,” Deist” and “false prophet,” and demanded that he step down as leader of the Church and that he be stripped of the office of mayor.

In response, Joseph as the mayor of Nauvoo declared the newspaper a public nuisance and ordered it shut down. Such measures though common in frontier communities, clearly violated the First Amendment. When word reached the Governor of Illinois, he placed Joseph and several other Mormon leaders under arrest. While Joseph await his hearing, an angry mob stormed the jail in Carthage where he was being housed. Determined to rid the world of a man they viewed as a false prophet and an enemy to true Christianity, they brutally shot and killed Joseph Smith.

With the murder of Joseph Smith, the Mormon community fell apart. Many were so put off by Joseph’s new doctrines, that they left Mormonism altogether. There were bitter disputes over who should succeed Joseph as leader of the Mormon community and which of Joseph doctrines should be accepted as legitimate. Joseph’s immediate family (his wife Emma, his children, mother and siblings) renounced his new doctrines and established a “reorganized” church in Missouri, teaching the orthodox Christian doctrines that Joseph had rejected. Other groups of Mormons migrated to places such as Michigan and Pennsylvania where they founded their own churches. The largest group of Mormons migrated west under the leadership of Brigham Young, where they changed the course of US history by colonizing the states of Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Although the largest Mormon denomination, the Utah church would see many of its members break away to establish a variety of churches, sects and cults.

There are now dozens upon dozens of different denominations within Mormonism. However, one thing unites them: in varying degrees, all reject important aspects of the King Follet Discourse’s new theology in favor of orthodox Christian beliefs.

Reform Mormons stand alone in declaring that Mormonism is, in fact, a new religion--completely separate and distinct from Christianity. Reform Mormons do not attempt to distance themselves from the King Follett Discourse or water-down its unique ideas . They know that these ideas cannot be reconciled the traditional monotheism. Taking these ideas are their foundation, Reform Mormons embrace progression, individualism, rational thought, science, technology and the arts--as well as the expansion of knowledge and human liberty. Reform Mormons fully embrace all aspects of Mormon history, and they look to the future, celebrating human achievement and the divine potential of each individual.

“The Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, ranks with Moses, Jesus and Mohammed as a creator of original religious ideas. His spiritual formulations concerning the supremacy of nature, the limitations of God, and the uncreatabillity of the human spirit masterfully addressed the religious issues of his day, These doctrines provided the foundation of a new religion that declared that men could become gods and that God himself was once but a mortal man. Smith’s new religion threw out the preeminence of God, replacing it with the ascendancy of man, just as colonial America had thrown out the preeminence of the king on favor of the ascendancy of the people.” (William Call in his book, “The Cultural Revolution.”)

WRESTLING WITH GOD: The Restoration of Israel

2006-05-27T07:57:00.000-07:00
Recently in an interdenominational study group, while discussing the topic of suffering and faith, the question was asked: “Have you ever demanded that God explain why suffering and evil exist?”

One gentleman immediately said, “We have no right to make any demands on God.” Others were quick to say that given human nature, it’s understandable that we would demand that God “tell us why.” Most maintained that a loving God understands human nature and forgives us for daring to make demands of Him, but everyone was in total agreement that when all is said and done, humans have no right to demand anything from God. As another gentleman explained: “We’re God’s creatures. He is the Creator. He has all power and knows everything--past, present and future. He owes us nothing. We’re the one’s indebted to Him--for everything. We have no right to make any demands on Him.”

The people in this group were all Christians, and so from the perspective the Christian Paradigm, what they said was correct: God, the creator and sustainer of all things, is so mighty that it’s ridiculous for mere humans to assume they can make demand anything from Him.

However, from the perspective of the Mormon Paradigm, the same thing could not be said.

The Mormon Paradigm rejects the doctrine of creationism altogether. As Joseph Smith taught, God may organize chaos into order, but He cannot create something out of nothing. God did not create humanity. Like God, the human mind is self-existing and eternal; human nature is co-equal with God. Humanity and God exist on the exact same principles; they are essentially the same type of being in different stages of progress.

Such doctrines are blasphemous according to the theologians of all monotheistic faiths. And yet, Joseph Smith‘s vision of God--as heretical as it may seem at first--is actually more in harmony with much of the Bible than is the traditional concept of God. As Harold Bloom has observed in several of his books, the God of the theologians is not the God of the Bible--in particular, the Lord God (YWHW) as presented in the oldest sections of the Old Testament. Bloom has praised Joseph Smith for somehow rediscovering the original God of ancient Israel and “archaic Judaism.”

This God is not as indifferent to human demands as traditional religions assume. Consider the story of the patriarch Jacob found in the book of Genesis.

The character of Jacob is troublesome to traditional concepts of what makes a proper Biblical hero--particularly from a Christian perspective. Some of the virtues that have been traditionally embraced by Christianity include humility, submissiveness before God, valuing the spiritual over the material, and a capacity for self-sacrifice.

Jacob personifies none of these supposed virtues.

As depicted in Genesis, Jacob is ambitious, bold, competitive, cunning and manipulative. He constantly out-smarts those who try to take advantage of him or try to stop him from getting what he wants. Eight years ago I visited a Sunday School class at a mainline Protestant Church where the lesson was centered on the story of Jacob. Not knowing what to make of Jacob from a Christian perspective, the class ended up making him into a vain, worldly, manipulative egotist in need of repentance.

And yet, nowhere in the Bible is Jacob presented as anything but a hero.

He succeeds in nearly all of his endeavors. Those who try to take advantage of him or harm him either fail or else they are won over by him. Whether Jacob in no way fits the modern Christian or Jewish ideal of what makes a godly person, it is obvious that the authors of the Bible did indeed admire of Jacob as heroic and godly. Nowhere in the text does God chastise and censor him. In fact, the case could be made that next to God Himself, Jacob is the central character in the Bible: His name is referred to more than frequently than that of any other character. In fact, as one progresses through the books of the Bible one discovers that God Himself is defined by His relationship to Jacob.

Which brings us back to the issue of humans making demands on God--which most people consider presumptuous, arrogant, even sinful.

Consider the following story--one of the most famous stories about this patriarch.

It is night time in the wilderness. Jacob, with his wives and children, is on his way back home after being away for years. Behind him is his crafty father-in-law who he outsmarted, eventually securing the man’s flocks, daughters and other riches. Waiting for Jacob in his homeland is his older brother Esau, whose gullibility he took advantage of in order to win their father’s blessing. Jacob assumes that Esau--who threatened to kill him years earlier--will try to make good on that threat when they meet the next morning.

“Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day.

Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob’s hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. And He said, “Let Me go, for the day breaks.”

But he [Jacob] said, “I will not let You go unless you bless me!”
So He said to him, “What is your name?”

He said, “Jacob.”

And He said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but is Israel; for your have contended with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

Then Jacob asked, saying, “Tell me Your name, I pray.”

And He said, “Why is it that you ask about My name?” And He blessed him there.

So Jacob called the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Genesis 32:24-30, New King James Version)

This story has traditionally been referred to as the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel. But notice that it is not an angel that Jacob wrestles, but God Himself.

Just as in earlier chapters of Genesis, God appears to Abraham as a Man (coming to Abraham’s camp and having lunch with him) so in this story God appears as a Man. (Notice that in English, upper case letters are used in all references to the Man character.) That God appears as a human with body, parts and passions contradicts the traditional concept of God in Christianity. It is completely in harmony with Joseph Smith’s declaration that “if you were to see God, you would see a man in form like yourself.”

Another point: Notice how Jacob (Israel) is completely unlike his grandfather Abraham. When the Man visited him, Abraham “bowed himself on the ground” before Him. Later when God told Abraham to make a human sacrifice of his son Isaac, Abraham went about the grim task willingly, with seemingly little personal turmoil. (Over the centuries theologians and believers have assumed that Abraham experienced great turmoil over God’s demand that he kill his own son, but if one reads the account in Genesis, there is no reference to any such turmoil.) Unlike Jacob, Abraham seems to represent the ideal Christian, Jew or Muslim who humbles himself before God and is obedient to whatever is required--even if it means killing his own child.

Jacob manifests none of this supposed virtues. One could hardly imagine Jacob being willing to sacrifice his own beloved son, Joseph, if God commanded it. When God comes to him, Jacob physically wrestles Him to the ground---and wins! Jacob actually overpowers God Himself, pinning Him to the ground. In an attempt to win the wrestling match, God uses divine powers to dislocate Jacob’s hip bone. Still Jacob keeps Him pinned to the ground. When God begs Jacob to let Him go, Jacob refuses, demanding that God give him a blessing.

God gives in to Jacob’s demand!

What happens next is a major turning point in the book of Genesis and the entire story line of the Bible (if one takes all of its books as whole.) God gives Jacob a new name--a name that will appear throughout the Bible more than any other. The name is Israel. The word literally means “to contend or wrestle with God.” From that point on, God would be known as the God of Israel (Jacob).

Then Jacob does what would be considered blasphemous in his day: he asks that God reveal His Name to him. In the culture that produced the book of Genesis, the names of Deities were kept secret from mortals. It was believed that to know the Name of a God was to have power over that God; if one knew a God’s Name, then one could call on that God whenever one wished and the God would be bound to answer. The Gods in ancient mythologies guarded their Names zealously, lest mortals learn Their Names and thus gain power over Them.

What does God do when Jacob asks for His Name? This was a blatant demand for more power. According to the mindset of that day and age, any self-respecting God would have cursed or destroyed Jacob for his request.

Instead, God blesses Jacob! While not revealing His Name, He nevertheless blesses Jacob for his presumptuousness! Two generations earlier, God covenanted to bless all the families of the earth through Abraham’s seed. And yet it isn’t the House of Abraham or the Children of Abraham who become central in the Biblical narratives. It is the House of Israel/Jacob and the Children of Israel/Jacob who dominate the Bible.

The covenant with Abraham is finalized through Jacob/Israel--who wrestled with men and with God, and who prevailed; who pinned God down and demanded a blessing; who had the nerve to ask God to reveal His Name.

What is a Christian to make of this story? I have no idea since it not only undermines all traditional concepts of Christian humility but also its concepts on the nature of God Himself.

However, as a Reform Mormon I find that this story resonates with the radical new doctrines of Mormonism. In fact, in light of this story, the “new” doctrines of Mormonism actually seem ancient.

Something in Joseph Smith’s later teachings resonates with character of Jacob and with the idea that blessings come because one is active instead of passive; because one make demands of God rather than blindly and meekly obeying commands from on high; because one seeks knowledge--even knowledge (symbolized in the concept of God having a secret name) that would give to humans powers previously reserved for Gods only.

“You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves….the same as all Gods have done before you…” (Joseph Smith)

JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

Jump in and join the discussion! If this lesson has triggered some thoughts or insights, if it has provoked questions--share your these by emailing them to us at:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

Your emails will be printed here. All views and opinions are welcomed

REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY

If you would like to be included in the upcoming Reform Mormon Directory, email the following information to: reformmormons@aol.com:

Your Full Name
Your place of residence (city, state, country)
Your Email address

Reform Mormons and those who merely have an interest in Reform Mormonism are invited to submit their names. Copies of this directory will only be emailed to those who include their names within it.

MOTHER'S DAY

2006-05-13T12:39:00.000-07:00
"It's the mother's fault." This cliche has become a joke in our culture. Parenting has traditionally be viewed as the responsibility first of the mother. When the child "goes astray" somehow someone somewhere blames the mother.

The trend is ancient; within Western society it can be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve's Fall. Like the Greek story of Pandora opening the forbidden box and releasing upon the world every sorrow and sin known to humankind, orthodox Christianity took the Israelite story of the Gardem of Eden and forced on to it--and the character of Eve--"the mother of all living"--the same meaning. In short, we are all miserable because ourt first mother couldn't do as she had been told.

"The Book of Mormon" turned this interpratation of the Eden story on its head. The so-called "fall" became a good thing, a "fall upwards," a major step in the progresison of the human race.

It was Eve, being the first to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, who convinced Adam that he, too, had to eat the fruit if they were ever to be happy.

So it was that in Mormon theology, the first truly heroic act in human history was attribute to Eve. Moms everywhere were vindicated!

What follows is a chapter from the 1877 book "Women of Mormondon" written by Edward Tuliddge and containing writing from Eliza R. Snow and a host of other leading Mormon women of the time.

The prose is quaintly poetic (very,very much so), the flowery kind of writing popular in Victorian times. The theology is that of Utah Mormonism in the 1870's, which means it is centered around the Adam/God Doctrine that was taught by Brigham Young and was part of the LDS Mormon Temple Endowment until 1905. However, the chapter does present a very positive view of Eve, who in 19th century Utah Mormonism, was believed to have been Heavenly Mother herself.

What is interesting is that Eve's role is written of in the same terms as that of Christ's. As in the traditional doctrine of Jesus dying on the cross to bring eternal life to humanity, Eve is praised for being a Celestial Goddess (Heavenly Mother)who came down to earth and subjected herself to death by becoming mortal, in order that the human race might come into being. Mormonism transformed Eve from the sultury sinner of Catholic and Protestant theology into the strong mother who sacrifices herself out of love for her kids.

While there is certainly more to motherhood than self-sacrifice, and while individual women (and men) have value in and of themselves--whether or not they are "fruitful and multiply"--I think the Mormon interpretation of the Eve story is a vast improvement over that of orthodox Christianity.

As Mormon writer, Rodello Hunter (in her 1962 book "A Daughter of Zion) observed regarding Eve: "It took a lot of courage to bite into that apple."

The same can be said of every woman who has accepted the role of mother--either for her own biological offspring or for others.

Happy Mother's Day!

A Trinty of Mothers
(From "Women of Mormondom")

“A trinity of Mothers!

“The celestial Masonry of Womanhood!

“The other half of the grand patriarchal economy of the heavens and the earths!

“The book of patriarchal theology is full of new conceptions. Like the star-bespangled heavens--like the eternities which it mantles--is that wondrous theology! New to the world, but old as the universe. 'Tis the everlasting book of immortals, unsealed to mortal view, by these Mormon prophets.

“A trinity of Mothers--Eve, the Mother of a world; Sarah, the Mother of the covenant; Zion, the Mother of celestial sons and daughters--the Mother of the new creation of Messiah's reign, which shall give to earth the crown of her glory and the cup of joy all her ages of travail. Still tracing down the divine themes of Joseph; still faithfully following the methods of that vast patriarchal economy which shall be the base of a new order of society and of the temple of a new civilization.

“When Brigham Young proclaimed to the nations that Adam was our Father and God, and Eve, his partner, the Mother of a world--both in a mortal and a celestial sense--he made the most important revelation ever oracled to the race since the days of Adam himself. This grand patriarchal revelation is the very keystone of the "new creation" of the heavens and the earth. It gives new meaning to the whole system of theology--as much new meaning to the economy of salvation as to the economy of creation. By the understanding of the works of the Father, the works of the Son are illumined.

“The revelation was the "Let there be light" again pronounced. "And there was light!"

"‘And God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.’

“Here is the very object of man and woman's creation exposed in the primitive command. The first words of their genesis are, "Be fruitful and multiply."

“So far, it is of but trifling moment how our "first parents" were created; whether like a brick, with the spittle of the Creator and the dust of the earth, or by the more intelligible method of generation. The prime object of man and woman's creation was for the purposes of creation.
‘
"Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it,’ by countless millions of your offspring.

“Thus opened creation, and the womb of everlasting motherhood throbbed with divine ecstasy.

“It is the divine command still. All other maybe dark as a fable, of the genesis of the race, but this is not dark. Motherhood to this hour leaps for joy at this word of God, "Be fruitful;" and motherhood is sanctified as by the holiest sacrament of nature. We shall prefer Brigham's expounding of the dark passages of Genesis. Our first parents were not made up like mortal bricks. They came to be the Mother and the Father of a new creation of souls. We say Mother now, first, for we are tracing this everlasting theme of motherhood, in the Mormon economy, without which nothing of the woman part of the divine scheme can be known--next to nothing of patriarchal marriage, to which we are traveling, be expounded.

“Eve--immortal Eve--came down to earth to become the Mother of a race.

“How become the Mother of a world of mortals except by herself again becoming mortal? How become mortal only by transgressing the laws of immortality? How only by "eating of the forbidden fruit"--by partaking of the elements of a mortal earth, in which the seed of death was everywhere scattered?

“All orthodox theologians believe Adam and Eve to have been at first immortal, and all acknowledge the great command, "Be fruitful and multiply." That they were not about to become the parents of a world of immortals is evident, for they were on a mortal earth. That the earth was mortal all nature here today shows. The earth was to be subdued by teeming millions of mankind--the dying earth actually eaten, in a sense, a score of times, by the children of these grand parents.

“The fall is simple. Our immortal parents came down to fall; came down to transgress the laws of immortality; came down to give birth to mortal tabernacles for a world of spirits. The "forbidden tree," says Brigham, contained in its fruit the elements of death, or the elements of mortality, By eating of it, blood was again infused into the tabernacles of beings who had become immortal. The basis of mortal generation is blood. Without blood no mortal can be born. Even could immortals have been conceived on earth, the trees of life had made but the paradise of a few; but a mortal world was the object of creation then. Eve, then, came down to be the Mother of a world. Glorious Mother, capable of dying at the very beginning to give life to her offspring, that through mortality the eternal life of the Gods might be given to her sons and daughters. Motherhood the same from the beginning even to the end! The love of motherhood passing all understanding! Thus read our Mormon sisters the fall of their Mother. And the serpent tempted the woman with the forbidden fruit. Did woman hesitate a moment then? Did motherhood refuse the cup for her own sake, or did she, with infinite love, take it and drink for her children's sake? The Mother had plunged down, from the pinnacle of her celestial throne, to earth, to taste of death that her children might have everlasting, life. What! should Eve ask Adam to partake of the elements of death first, in such a sacrament! 'Twould have outraged motherhood! Eve partook of that supper of the Lord's death first. She ate of that body and drank of that blood.

“Be it to Adam's eternal credit that he stood by and let our Mother--our ever blessed Mother Eve--partake of the sacrifice before himself Adam followed the Mother's example, for he was great and grand--a Father worthy indeed of a world. He was wise, too: for the blood of life is the stream of mortality.

“What a psalm of everlasting praise to woman, that Eve fell first! A Goddess came down from her mansions of glory to bring the spirits of her children down after her, in their myriads of branches and their hundreds of generations! She was again a mortal Mother now. The first person in the trinity of Mothers.

“The Mormon sisterhood take up their themes of religion with their Mother Eve, and consent with her, at the very threshold of the temple, to bear the cross. Eve is ever with her daughters in the temple of the Lord their God.

“The Mormon daughters of Eve have also in this eleventh hour come down to earth, like her, to magnify the divine office of motherhood. She came down from her resurrected, they from their spirit, estate. Here, with her, in the divine providence of maternity, they begin to ascend the ladder to heaven, and to their exaltation in the courts of their Father and Mother God.

“Who shall number the blasphemies of the sectarian churches against our first grand parents? Ten thousand priests of the serpent have thundered anathemas upon the head of "accursed Adam." Appalling, often times, their pious rage. And Eve--the holiest, grandest of Mothers--has been made a very by-word to offset the frailties of the most wicked and abandoned.

“Very different is Mormon theology! The Mormons exalt the grand parents of our race. Not even is the name of Christ more sacred to them than the names of Adam and Eve. It was to them the poetess and high priestess addressed her hymn of invocation; and Brigham's proclamation that Adam is our Father and God is like a hallelujah chorus to their everlasting names. The very earth shall yet take it up; all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve shall yet shout it for joy, to the ends of the earth, in every tongue!” (From "Women of Mormondom," published in 1877)