Scripture as Art: Reframing The Book Of Mormon

November 7, 2004

Since the "Galelio Event" of no Middle-Eastern genetic evidence in Native Americans, all those professing a belief in the Book of Mormon - and its claim that modern-day Native Amercans are descended from Lamantes - have had to come to terms with this evidence and find some way to explain the Book of Mormon's histocracy.

A recent issue of Sunstone was devoted to the exploration of the idea of "reframing" the Book of Mormon. Those with long-held beliefs in the literalness of the book are looking for ways to square the evidence with their belief.

To lay the issue out for examination, here are a couple of excerpts from that issue. First, from Brent Metcalfe, one of the co-editors of American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, in which the article by Thomas Murphy recently laid out the DNA case. (Mr. Murphy, a member of the LDS Church, was called in for LDS Church discipline as a result of the article but the church quickly backed off when publicity around the article and disciplinary actions began to look as punishment for being a scientist.)

"We are witnessing the reinvention of the Book of Mormon - not by skeptical critics, but by believing apologists. Most Mormons likely believe what the Book of Mormon introduction teaches - that "the Lamanites ... are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." They hold this belief oblivious to the fact that over the last few decades LDS scholars at Brigham Young University and elsewhere have substantially altered this traditional view.

Findings from multidisciplinary studies of the Book of Mormon have increasingly led LDS scholars to shrink and di­lute the book's American Israelite (or Amerisraelite) popula­tion. Apologetic scholars now recognizez that Book of Mormon events could not have spanned North, Central, and South America, and (2) that modern Amerindians are predom­inately of East Asian ancestry. Confirmation of both acknowl­edgments is found in analyses that establish an Asian, not Middle Eastern, genetic signature for the overwhelming ma­jority of Amerindians.BYU geneticist Michael Whiting stip­ulates, a hemispheric colonization model for the Book of Mormon "is indeed incorrect" and "appears falsified by current genetic evidence."

Many LDS apologists envision the Book of Mormon's founding Israelite colonists as a small group who interacted in varying degrees with the vast indigenous populations of Mesoamerica. In time, sustained widespread exogamy with these "others" effectively extinguished the Israelites' unique Middle Eastern genetic signature. Accordingly, Lamanites and Nephites are defined by something other than Israelite an­cestry. Such theories turn traditional understandings of Book of Mormon lands and peoples, including Joseph Smith's reve­lations, on their head. While perhaps affording revisionist Book of Mormon studies a veneer of scientific respectability, these apologetic ef­forts to reinvent Lamanite identity face some formidable chal­lenges..."

Trent Stephens, professor of anatomy and embryology at Idaho State University and co-author of Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding set up the situation this way:

"The Book of Mormon purports to present a history of three major groups of people who migrated to the Americas from the Middle East. The first group, the Jaredites, apparently annihilated itself. The second group split into the Nephites and Lamanites. The third group, the Mulekites, merged with the Nephites. Shortly after his mission in the Middle East, the resurrected Jesus Christ appeared to descendants of those people. As a result of Christ's teachings, the people became united into one group. Eventually a division again occurred, and a group referred to as Lamanites (unbelievers) split from those referred to as Nephites (believers). Ultimately, the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites and remained as the only representatives of Middle Eastern colonization in the New World.

In contrast to this account, data from numerous molecular population genetic studies suggest that the ancestors of extant Native Americans came from Siberia. No genetic evidence specifically supports the hypothesis that Native Americans descended from Middle Eastern populations. Furthermore, there is little reason to assume that additional data will reverse the current conclusions. In light of these data and conclusions, which challenge the keystone of our faith, many Latter Saints and other interested people may ask, 'Now what? How do we deal with this new information?' Some have referred this quandary as a 'Galileo Event.'

The nature of a sound scientific hypothesis is that it can be easily tested by observation or experimentation and that tests can invalidate the hypothesis. A good scientific hypothesis relevant to the topic at hand might state that all living Native Americans descended from Middle Eastern populations. Such a hypothesis could be tested by comparing genetic markers in Native American populations to markers from Middle Eastern populations. Such a test has never actually been rigorously conducted because such a scientific hypothesis has never been advanced. Rather, an alternative hypothesis has been advanced. That hypothesis is that all living Native Americans descended from Asian populations. The test of that hypothesis, comparing genetic markers from extant Native American populations to those of extant Asian populations, has been repeated many times and supports the stated hypothesis. The most parsimonious conclusion resulting from the test of that hypothesis is that alternative, competing hypotheses, such as one proposing a Middle Eastern origin of Native Americans, are rejected by the data.

Now what? What is one to do with these results, which cast doubt on the authenticity of The Book of Mormon? The implications may be numerous. Most of them, not being based on the formulation of testable hypotheses, fall outside the realm of scientific investigation. In light of the Book of Mormon story, people might react to the data concerning Native American origins in four different ways:

• One - The data refute the historic authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, belief in the book is unfounded and should be abandoned.

• Two - The data may be ignored. In spite of the data, people may continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern descent.

• Three - People may take a wait-and-see attitude. Future data may exonerate their belief that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from Middle Eastern populations.

• Four - The Book of Mormon story is still true. However; the data refute the notion that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern descent. Middle Eastern colonization in the Americas may have been very small compared to the remainder of the population, and, as a result of two major bottleneck events, no genetic evidence of a Middle Eastern origin is present in the extant population, nor is such evidence likely to be forthcoming.

None of those four postures constitute a scientific hypothesis: none of them can be tested by experimentation or observation. Rather, because the implications are beyond the scope of physical science, they fall into the realm of metaphysics. Metaphysical debates are of the nature to continue, without satisfactory conclusion, for centuries or even millennia. The debate resulting from the apparent conflict between the Book of Mormon story and the genetic data is likely to be one such contest."


May I suggest a fifth option? One that Reform Mormons will find in line with their approach to scripture?

Five - The evidence is likely correct. The events in the Book of Mormon never occurred. Many of the claims the book makes about itself are incorrect. It is full of errors, fiction, and fantasy. It is a myth. It's a story designed to play a role in one's belief structure, not to be a history as those in the past have categorized it and some in the present continue to position it. If that role is one of literal truth, the Book of Mormon will likely fail you. If that role is the role of the power of myth, one can find - indeed, many have found - inspiration in the Book of Mormon.

Reform Mormons recognize that all scripture was written by human beings. It is therefore a man-made or woman-made object - a created thing. Does that object contain inspiration? Does any created object contain inspiration? You be the judge. We view writing that is inspired to be "scripture" - which means many other writings may "speak" more loudly to a Reform Mormon than the Book of Mormon, and play the role of "scripture" in their lives than does the Book of Mormon.

Whether or not the book is a literal history is a ridiculous discussion. Reform Mormons don't need to engage in it since we don't connect the idea of its "truthfullness" to the idea that we belong to "the one true church." These concepts mean little or nothing to us, because they're quite useless.

What does mean something? Learning to recognize inspiration in writing, and allowing it to mean something to you that is emotional, satisfying, and more than just the sum of the words. Learning to evaluate and incorporate new facts, not just find ways around them or dismiss them. Learning to create our own writing, explanation, and definitions of what currently has impact in our lives, rather than adopting someone elses's outside system of what should matter. Learning to be free agents.

This is how we learn to progress and grow. Scripture plays a role in this. It is not, to us, a "foundation." We are the foundation. Scripture merely allows us to see ourselves differently, to understand ourselves better, to observe areas of potential growth, and - at its best - to learn to connect to a deeper part of ourselves and confront the veil. This view of ourselves is clouded at best and completely inaccurate at worst if we adopt other people's insistence upon - or perspectives of - literalness.

Please share your thoughts on the Book of Mormon, and its role as a myth, on the Reform Mormon Discussion Group.

******************************************************
American Apocrapha and Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding can be purchased from Signature Books.

Sunstone offers, amongst other things, symposia and a magazine.

Remembering Haun's Mill

Sunday October 31, 2004

October 30 marks a solemn anniversary in Mormon history: "Haun's Mill." Mormonism was born and lived out its first 80 years in violence, more so than any other American religion. These few quick paragraphs from No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie retell the incident well:

That night a wounded man stumbled into Far West with news that froze the blood of every Saint. The settlement at Haun's Mill had been attacked by two hundred militiamen. The Mormons had fled into the blacksmith shop, which they thought would make an admirable fort, but it had proved in­stead to be a slaughterhouse. Great cracks yawned between the logs of the shop, and the Missourians, hiding behind trees, picked off the Mormons at their leisure as if they had been kill­ing cattle in a pen. When the women fled toward the brush, the men shot at them in derision. Old Thomas McBride fell wounded and surrendered his gun, whereupon one of the mob coolly hacked him to pieces with a corn-cutter.

After shooting down every Mormon they could see, the mob entered the blacksmith shop to finish off the wounded. They found nine-year-old Sardius Smith hiding under the bellows. His younger brother, shot through the hip, and pretending to be dead, heard the men drag Sardius out from his hiding-place. "Don't shoot," said one militiaman, "it's just a boy." "It's best to hive them when we can. Nits will make lice," a man replied, and placing his rifle near the boy's head, blew out his brains.

When darkness came, the women crept back to the scene of carnage. Of the thirty-eight men and boys in the camp, seven­teen had been slain and fifteen wounded. Fearful that the mob would return, the women lowered the dead into an unfinished well, hid the wounded in the woods, and then, stunned and desolate, made their way toward Far West.

As Reform Mormons entering the final few months of the year, when Daylight Savings Time makes the night seem longer, things get colder, and life seems to wither with winter, Haun's Mill reminds us of the trials and persecution that occurred in our heritage - and the courage of those who persevered.

Did you make resolutions at the beginning of the year? Where do they stand now? Have you completed them? Nothing you are trying to accomplish in your life is likely as challenging as the trails of our Mormon forbearers. We are a people formed and tested in some of the most violent and unjust situations in American history, and we survived and prospered. You have the blood of success in your veins.

When we remember Haun's Mill, we remember that we have been tested, and we have survived. When you light the Sabbath candles this weekend, remember that part of Restoration is completion. To get to completion, you may need to double your efforts, and "gird up your loins, fresh courage take." Remember that after Haun's Mill, the survivors went on to Deseret with the refrain "all is well." It is quintessentially Mormon to demonstrate that courage.

THE DEVIL & JOE SMITH: A Mormon Concept of Evil

Sunday, October 24, 2004

The Devil was very real for many people living on the western frontier in the early nineteenth century. The people of Palmyra, New York--among whom the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith came of age--were no exception.

For the money diggers, village seers and magicians--with whom the teenage Joseph and his father kept company--it was the Devil and his minions of evil spirits and spirit guardians who kept them from digging up the fabled buried treasures that would bring them financial salvation. For the revivalist ministers--with whom the teenage Joseph and his mother kept company--the devil was “the God of this world,” who led the proud and the worldly from the paths of Christian salvation.

Joseph’s earliest theological writings regarding the Devil (found in “The Book of Mormon”) reflect a mixture of both of the concepts, blending Protestant evangelicalism with early American folk-magic. In the earliest Mormon theology, the Devil tempted people to sin so that he might have power over them and make them eternally miserable. (For examples of this concept, see II Nephi 2:18; Alma 8:9, 12:17 and 15:17) When the wicked who were under the Devil’s control attempted to hide their treasures by burying them in the earth, a curse was placed upon the ground, causing the treasures to become “slippery” and it became impossible to dig them back up. (For examples see Helaman 12:18, 13:18-23; Mormon 1:18)

Belief in folk-magic, evil spirits and demonic possession were common among the first converts to Mormonism in upstate New York. In fact, the first claim that Joseph Smith could work miracles came as a result of a successful exorcism that Joseph--at the insistence of followers--performed on Newel Knight, who claimed to have been possessed by the Devil.

There is little evidence historically that Joseph Smith encouraged such activities. If any thing, the evidence indicates that he was uncomfortable with demands that he prove his prophetic calling by casting out devils and demons, or by performing supernatural feats.

As the years passed and Joseph’s theology evolved, so did his concept of the Devil. For Joseph Smith the Devil became something of a comic figure--a mixture of a traveling snake-oil salesman, a hypocritical protestant minister, a crooked lawyer and populist politician. This was reflected not only in the dramatic portions of the Temple Endowment, but in the political writings that Mormons produced as part of Joseph’s presidential campaign.

As comical a literary figure as the Devil became for Joseph, the Mormon Devil, nevertheless, became the embodiment of an evil far more threatening to modern civilization than lost faith or evil supernatural forces.

THE BIRTH OF THE CHRISTAIN DEVIL

Traditional and popular concepts of the devil are the product of orthodox Christianity. Before Christianity became the state religion of Rome, thus establishing monotheism throughout the western world, many gods were worshipped--with each god or goddess ruling over some aspect of existence.

For example, the Greek god Dionysus (Bacchus--according to the Romans) was the god of wine and song. He was often depicted as a satyr--the horned half goat, half human creatures who were associated with music and sex.

Christianity, by incorporating into its emerging theology much of Plato’s philosophy, looked up the natural world and physical pleasure as sinful and fallen, as under the control of the devil. With time images of Dionysus and satyrs were used in depictions of the devil. Thus was born the goat-footed and horned Satan of tradition. Like Dionysus before him, the Satan of Christianity became the embodiment of all that was carnal and sensual.

With the emergence of monotheism as the dominant world view, a new problem was born. As long as people believed that there were many gods warring and quarreling among themselves in the heavens, there was a theological reason for the calamities and evils that fell upon humanity. But when Christianity declared that there was only one God who created all things, people began to question why evil existed. After all, Christianity taught that God was all good. But evil and suffering were realities. Did God create them? And if he did create evil, how could one maintain that God was perfect and good.

In attempting to deal with such questions, Christianity turned to the devil who became something of a demigod--an eternal adversary of the one true God. Humanity’s woes and all evil could be traced back to Satan.

But if God is the creator of all things, why did he create the devil? Christians speculated that originally Satan was created as an angel--the brightest and most beautiful of all heavenly beings. But then Satan became filled with pride, tried to elevate himself above God and was thus cast from heaven into hell, where he ruled as the devil.

Even this did not solve monotheism’s dilemma. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, wouldn’t He have known from the beginning that Satan would rebel and fall? If He knew this, why did He create Satan in the first place? And why does He allow Satan to have such power over the world now?

Christianity has never been able to answer these questions to the satisfaction of most. The dilemma over the Devil continues. During the twentieth century, as the largest denominations within Mormonism reverted back to traditional Christian concepts and theology, the devil once again became the subject of many a Mormon sermon. In current LDS Testimony, Sunday School, Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, one often hears references to the world being under the control of theDevil; of the Devil conspiring to keep faithful Latter-Day Saints from attending the Temple and such.

A question arises: Is the Christian and modern Mormon concept of Satan supported by the writings of the Bible? Using only this book of scripture, a convincing case can be made that the Devil--as popularly depicted and traditionally conceived--is not be found in the Bible at all.

THE BIBLICAL SATAN

If an adult raised in the Christian or LDS tradition begins to read the Bible from the beginning for the first time, he may be shocked to find that he has to read for several hundred pages before coming across any mention of “devils.”

Note that the word is “devils”--plural, not singular. The word “devils” appears in Leviticus 17:7 and Deuteronomy 32:17 in reference to the ancient Israelites offering up sacrifices to false gods. THE devil--as traditionally conceived--is mentioned no where in the Old Testament.

The only place in the Old Testament where the character of Satan makes an actual appearance is in the opening passages of the Book of Job. (See Job 2:1-7) The scene is the court of Lord on a day when the sons of God (divine beings) “came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. “

There is no mention of Satan being a devil or the Devil; there’s no indication that Satan is evil, wicked or fallen. In fact, Satan is depicted as one of “the sons of God”--a divine being who is perfectly welcomed in the courts of heaven.

The Lord brags to Satan of Job’s virtue and integrity. Satan replies that if the Lord were to bring misfortune on Job, the man would curse Him. The Lord then delivers Job into Satan’s hand in order to test him.

The word “Satan” comes from the Hebrew for “slanderer” or “accuser.” In the ancient Israelite religion Satan was not evil, was not a devil, but a divine being who played the role of “prosecuting attorney” before the Lord. When one was brought before the Lord to be judged, it was Satan’s role to point out one’s sins and shortcomings, to bear record of the human condition before the throne of God.

In it is this context that Satan is mentioned in Psalms 109:6 and I Chronicles 21: 1---the only other two places in the entire Old Testament that make any reference to him.

One must read over two thirds of the Christian Bible before one finds any passages that reflect any concept of the Devil as traditionally conceived. These verses are found exclusively in the writings of the New Testament.

These writings were the product of a different age and civilization than were the writings of the Old Testament. The New Testament was the product of both Jewish and Gentile writers living in the first and second centuries of the common era. Being the products of the Roman world, these writers were influenced by the philosophies of ancient Greece--thus they tended to believe that there was a struggle going on between the forces of a fallen material/physical world and the immaterial/spiritual world of pure ideals. Though the Devil is mentioned only in New Testament writings and even though the influence of Greek thought can be detected, its interesting to note that the Devil is still associated primarily with the worship of false gods (like the devils mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) and with the role of “prosecuting attorney”-- or “the accuser of our brethren.” (See Revelation 12:7-10)

Though the Book of Revelation refers to Satan being cast out of heaven, it should be noted that this was seen as a future event. There is not a single passage within the entire Bible stating that Satan has already fallen or has already been cast from heaven.

One could reasonably conclude, therefore, that the entire Christian myth of the fall of Satan (a myth which many Mormons have, to a great extent, incorporated into their personal beliefs) can not be supported by an appeal to the Bible alone.

LUCIFER: A CASE OF MISTAKEN INDENTITY

Some readers of the Bible might point out that an important passage concerning the Devil has been overlooked. The passage is found in Isaiah:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14: 12-15)

Many Christians and Mormons mistakenly think that this verse is referring to the fall of the Devil; that as a result of the Devil’s desire to become more powerful than God, God cast him out of heaven into hell. This passage is the source of the Christian idea that the Devil feel as a result of pride and ambition.

Early in his career, Joseph accepted this traditional misinterpretation of this passage. Therefore in Doctrine & Covenant 76:26 writings he referred to the Devil as Lucifer, and in section 29:36-38 incorporated elements of Isaiah‘s language when discussing the Devil‘s fall.

But if one reads these verses within their proper context (meaning within the context of the chapter in which it appears) it becomes obvious that it is not the Devil who is being addressed, but the King of Babylon. The passage in which the verses appear begins with these words:

“That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon and say…” (Isaiah: 14:4)

The verses concerning the fall of Lucifer are part of this “proverb against the King of Babylon.” No where in the entire book of Isaiah is there any mention whatsoever of the Devil or Satan. In fact, the name "Lucifer" refers to the planet Venus--which appears in the sky as a bright star.

Instead of referring to the fall of an angel, this passage in Chapter 14 is an outcry against the King of Babylon, who through his pride attempted to conquer the world and exalt himself above the God of Israel and the stars of heaven. In the end, he would prove mortal, die and descend into the grave (the Hebrew word “shaol,” which is translated here as the word “hell”).

Thus the tradition that the Devil fell because of pride and arrogance is not supported by the Bible.

(Note: For more information of this passage of Isaiah and on the origin of the idea that Lucifer is the devil, see the reference and reading material links at the end of this lesson.)

THE DEVIL OF MORMONISM

As Mormon theology evolved, a new paradigm--or scheme of things--was laid out by Joseph Smith. In this new theology, the universe was uncreated. Existence had always existed. Opposition in all things had also existed.

There existed, too, an endless number of Gods stretching through the eternities. The God of this world--like all of the Gods--had once been human, had lived and died on an earth like our own. By experiencing opposition in all things and then choosing to grow and progress in knowledge and virtue, God became God. Humans (like God before them) could also travel this same path.

By also experiencing opposition in all things and choosing to grow in knowledge and virtue, every human being had the potential for Godhood.

If opposition in all things was an eternal state, then within the Mormon scheme of things there was no need for an answer to the questions, “Why Does Evil Exist? Why is there suffering?” There was no need for a God or a Devil upon whom one could affix blame or responsibility for these things. Opposition was simply a fact of existence and what mattered most were the choices an individual made in the face of opposition.

Thus Joseph Smith told a new myth regarding the “creation” and the fall of the Devil:

“…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…Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council…[In the Grand Council a contention arose.] The contention in heaven was this: Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved, and the devil said he could save them all. The grand council gave in for Jesus Christ. So the devil rebelled against God and fell, with all who put up their heads for him." (Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse)

Joseph went into greater detail in “The Pearl of Great Price”:

“ [Satan] came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.” (Moses 1: 1-3)

Mormon theology presents a radical new reason for Satan’s fall: he wanted to guarantee that no human being would choose a path other than one of righteousness. Satan wanted to make sure that not a single individual would be lost.

But in order to do this, the very nature of the individual would have to be altered. In short, humans would be denied their full humanity--with all their virtues and their vices. In turn this would have undermined the great scheme of things. According to Mormonism’s new paradigm:

"As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.”

Immersion in humanity is the path to Divinity. Divinity is the outgrowth of human choice. To change the nature of humanity would be to undermine their potential for Divinity.

THE ULTIMATE EVIL

The Mormon Satan became the embodiment of what could be considered--in light of the Mormon scheme of thing--the ultimate evil: the destruction of human Free Agency or Free Will.

In the Temple drama, Satan lays out his mode of operation:

“I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, false priests who and tyrant who destroy and tyrants who destroy, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!”

Especially in light of twentieth century world history as well as many of the forces at work in the world today, the ideas above can seem particularly frightening. Notice also that part of the Mormon Devil’s plan is the mixing of religious authority and power with governmental authority and power. The idea that government by the force of law (which is the use or threat of physical force) should attempt legislate ideals and values based on religious faith could be labeled “Satanic”--if one seriously considers what the Mormon Satan actually symbolizes. According to the Mormon Satan, individual freedom is seen as the enemy of universal salvation.

In older versions of the Temple drama, the Mormon Devil tries to undermine the Divine scheme by hiring a minister to teach false doctrines to the characters of Adam and Eve--who personify the average man and woman. Consider the following exchange between the character of Satan’s minister and Adam:

MINISTER: Do you believe in a God without body, parts, or passions; who sits on the top of a topless throne; whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere; who fills the universe, and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart; who is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace, not for any act of theirs, but by His good pleasure. Do you believe in such a great Being?

ADAM: I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.

MINISTER: That is the beauty of it. Perhaps you do not believe in a devil, and in that great hell, the bottomless pit, where there is a lake of fire and brimstone into which the wicked are cast, and where they are continually burning, but never consumed?

ADAM: I do not believe in any such place.

MINISTER: My dear friend, I am sorry for you.

What is enlightening here is not the specifics of the doctrines being taught but the internal contradictions that make them unfathomable. When Adam comments that his can’t comprehend what is being taught, the Devil’s minister replies, “That is the beauty of it.”

By attacking human reason, the Mormon Devil attempts to overthrow human freedom. When Adam fails to see the beauty of incomprehensible doctrines, the Devil’s minister moves on to another strategy: fear of a burning Hell and eternal damnation in the afterlife, if one doesn’t do as one is told in this life.

(What is also enlightening in about the above dialogue is that, in the context of the Temple drama, the traditional doctrine of eternal damnation and a burning Hell were presented as false doctrines. It is interesting to note that today there a millions of LDS Mormons who originally participated in the above Temple ceremony and yet who, nevertheless, believe in the doctrines of Hell and eternal damnation.)

REFORM MORMONISM

Reform Mormonism embraces the Mormon paradigm of eternity. Opposition in all things is simply a part of existence. Just as God is not needed to explain the existence of that which is good, neither is a Devil needed to explain the existence of that which is bad.

What is most important within Reform Mormonism is the Eternal Progression of the individual towards Godhood. It is Eternal Porgress--not salvation from hell or eternal damnation--that is the object of Reform Mormons. For one to progress, one must have complete freedom to explore and discover, to ask questions, to debate, to create, to try and fail, and to try again.

For this to occur, freedom is essential. The Mormon concept of Free Agency is fully embraced by Reform Mormons.

Consider these words--the lyrics of the very first hymn published in the very first Mormon hymnal in 1835:

Know this that every soul is free,
To choose his life and what he’ll be;
For this eternal truth is given,
That God will force no man to heaven.

He’ll call, persuade, direct him right;
Bless him with wisdom, love and light;
In nameless ways be good and kind;
But never force the human mind.

Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?
Mere animals and just as well

The beasts should think of heaven and hell.

Discussion Questions

Has belief in the Devil played a role in my moral development? If so, what has been the end effect?

What are the potential problems of blaming the ills of life on a devil?

What are the pitfalls of using fear of Hell, eternal damnation and the Devil as motivators for moral behavior? How is the concept of Eternal Progression a better incentive for moral behavior?

How comfortable am I with the Mormon idea that “there must needs be opposition in all things?”

How do I view opposition? Do I tend to see opposition as an evil to be overcome or as a “fact of life” that allows me to progress and grow?

What role has the concept of Free Agency played in my moral development?

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

Freedom and reason make us human. Take these away, what are we?
_________________________________________________________________

JUMP IN & JOIN THE DISCUSSION!
ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

To respond to some of the questions raised in this Gospel Doctrine session,
or to make a comment or ask a question, email:
Reformmormons@aol.com.

Your comments may be posted here throughout the coming week or shared at the Reform Mormonism Discussion Group--which you are welcome to join. If you are a member there, you may post your comment directly to the discussion group at http://reformmormonismdisc@yahoogroups.com/.
______________________________________________________________________

References and Suggested Readings

Relating to this Gospel Doctrine Lesson

“The Book of Moses” Chapter 4:1-3 (The Pearl of Great Price)
http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/4



“The King Follett Discourse.” Joseph Smith last and greatest sermon, explaining the Mormon creation myth--including the reason for Satan’s fall.
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm


Sites explaining how the Isaiah passage concerning Lucifer has been misinterpreted as referring to the Devil:


“Lucifer Is Not An Old Testament Name for the Devil”
http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html


“Satan, Devil & Demons”
http://www.bbie.org/WrestedScriptures/B07Satan/Isaiah14v12-14.html


“Is Satan Lucifer?”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r9810q.htm


“Lucifer: Where did the Word Come From & What Is Its True Meaning”
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml


“Lucifer”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm


“Mormonism’s New Paradigm”
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/newmormonparadigm.htm_


“In The Beginning, or Let the Insanity Begin.” This essay explores in detail how Joseph Smith’s rejection of creationism positively affects philosophy and concepts of morality.
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/i


Reform Mormonism homepage
http://www.reformmormonism.org/

THE ETERNAL MIND/ THE UNCREATED SELF: Reform Mormonism & the Individual

Sunday, October 17, 2004

In a eulogy delivered on April 7, 1845 (just weeks before his murder), the Mormon Prophet 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.”

Few of Joseph’s critics (then or now) as well as a sizeable portion of those who revered him as a prophet (then and now) were entirely comfortable with the “things more noble” that he taught that day. His critics have labeled his ideas blasphemy, while the majority of Mormons worldwide have either rejected his concepts outright or have attempted to water them down.

Joseph’s teachings regarding a plurality of Gods who were once human beings was indeed heretical and blasphemous by Christian standards. Attempts by some modern Mormons to reconcile this notion with the writings of such orthodox Christians as C.S. Lewis or early church fathers ring hollow, demonstrating ignorance or disregard of Christianity’s central doctrine: the existence of one God and one God only.

But history is filled with heresies regarding the existence and nature of the Divine. What set Joseph Smith apart from all others before him were his teachings on the nature of man.

THE UNCREATED MIND/ THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

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 prophetic career, 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, for I am dwelling on the spirit and body 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 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. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. 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. Moreover, all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement.

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.”

THE ETERNAL MIND, THE FREE MIND

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)

Being free by nature, each spirit may pursue what he or she values. The result is that each spirit is by nature truly an individual, with each progressing at his or her own rate, developing his or her abilities and talents to different, in different ways. While all share the same nature, that very nature ensures that each is a unique individual. Not having been created by God and being by nature free, each individual creates his or her own character.

These eternal differences in abilities, knowledge and character are referenced in the creation myth as laid out by Joseph Smith in his “Book of Abraham”:

“…if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all…

“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligence that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good.” (Abraham 3: 18-19, 22-23)

James E. Talmage wrote:

“So far as we can peer into the past by the aid of revealed light we can see that there was always a gradation of intelligence, and consequently of ability, among spirits…Individualism is an attribute of the soul, and as truly eternal as the soul itself.”

WHY DID GOD MAKE HIM THAT WAY?
INDIVIDUALISM & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

One idea that traditional western religion has spawned is the concept of that God, being the creator of all, bears ultimate responsibility for “the way someone is.” In short, many have shouldered God with responsibility for character traits that they have found less than admirable. This has the interesting result of not only relieving individuals of responsibility for certain aspects of their characters, but also giving these aspects the stamp of divine approval.
It is difficult to reconcile such traditional notions with the Mormon scheme of things as laid out by Joseph Smith.

Mormon theologian, B.H. Roberts wrote:

“The conception of the existence of uncreated, self-existent intelligences, who by the inherent nature of them are of various intelligences, who by the inherent nature of them are of various degrees on intelligence, and moral quality, differing from each other in many ways, yet alike in their eternity and their freedom…relieves God of the responsibility of the nature and moral status of intelligences in all stages of their development.”

True individuality and freedom means personal responsibility.

Discussion Questions:

How could the doctrine that God created each of us as we are be comforting at times? What is the price of such comfort?

How could the idea that we are eternal, uncreated, free agents be uncomfortable and disturbing at times? Considering your own character, situation and progress, what strength, solace and comfort can be found by accepting this idea?

ARE OUR SPIRITS THE LITERAL OFFSPRING OF GOD?

Interestingly enough, 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 Mormons: that our spirits were literally begotten by a heavenly father and a heavenly mother.


Yet, as Mormon scholar Dan Hale has pointed out, 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.”


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. 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; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.”


It wasn’t until after the murder of Joseph Smith that Pratt made public his concept 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?

It should be remembered that it was the secret practice of polygamy that ultimately set in to motion the events that led to Joseph Smith’s arrest and murder by a mob. Joseph’s sudden death sent the church into chaos. The Apostles saw it as their calling to maintain order in the church by denying accusations of polygamy while at the same time secretly maintaining the practice. Eager to move the church our of the United States to Mexican territory where, free from U.S. law, they could practice polygamy openly, the Apostle began to lay a theological grounding for the doctrine. Pratt’s doctrine that the spirit was sexually generated by heavenly parents elevated human reproduction to a divine level. Since plural marriage allowed a man to have more biological children than he might have in a traditional monogamous marriage, Pratt’s doctrine served as the perfect justification for the practice.


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. B.H. Roberts proposed that the “eternal intelligence” of the individual was the matter from which heavenly parents, through sexual union, organized the spirit/mind of the individual. But this proposal overlooks the fact that Joseph Smith made not differentiation between the concepts of “spirit,” “intelligence” and “mind.”


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.”

Discussion Questions:

What affect has the doctrine that our spirits are the sexually generated offspring of our Heavenly Parents have upon the way men and women are viewed? What effect might this doctrine have upon a marriage, a family or a romantic relationship?


How has this doctrine been used to foster sexism? How has it been used as a justification for forcing particulars roles upon men and women--regardless of their individual abilities, preferences or circumstances?


How does sexism undermine the concept of individuality?


How might marriages, as well as familial and romantic relationships be strengthened by rejecting the doctrine the spirits are sexually begotten and by embracing Joseph Smith’s teaching that the human mind is by nature eternal, uncreated and free?

A RELIGION OF HUMAN FREEDOM

As serious study of Mormon history and doctrine progresses, Mormons of all stripes are beginning to see the virtue of Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding the eternal, uncreated nature of the human mind. Self-described “Cultural Mormon,” William Call has noted:


“…Momonism’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!”

Discussion Questions:

Looking back over human history, how has the doctrine of creation effected civilization? Have these effects been positive, negative or both? What has been the effect of creationism on science, philosophy, human rights and progress?


What effect have the concepts of individualism and human freedom had upon civilization, science, philosophy, human rights and progress?


How might Joseph Smith’s rejection of creationism and his theology of the eternal, uncreated nature of the human spirit effect civilization, science, philosophy, human rights and progress?

REFORM MORMONISM & THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

Reform Mormonism is unique from other denominations within Mormonism in that it focuses--without any reservations---on the individual. Reform Mormonism does view God as an authority figure who issues commands which humans are duty-bound to obey; therefore it is a non-paternalistic form of Mormonism, that focuses on progression instead of rules. While accepting of all people regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, Reform Mormonism places ultimate responsibility for one’s personal progress on the individual who is by nature free.
For Reform Mormons these ideas resonate with Joseph Smith’s theology regarding the eternal, uncreated nature of the human spirit. In fact, what sets Reform Mormons apart from other Mormons is their willingness to take even the most radical concepts of Joseph Smith and other early Mormons and explore them openly and rationally, accepting and building upon those concepts that enhance human life, happiness and progress, while rejecting those which are irrational and could serve as foundations for ignorance, superstition and bigotry.

Discussion Questions:

How is my understanding of Mormonism affecting my view of the world, my relationships with others, as well as my progression and personal happiness?


Is my understanding of Mormonism the result of my own study, meditation and prayer, or is it something that I have merely accepted without question?


How has my understanding of Mormonism affected the way in which I view myself? Is my understanding of Mormonism at odds with what I know about myself?


How can I enhance my understanding of Mormonism so that it becomes a greater force for happiness and progress in my life and in the lives of my loved ones?

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

The human mind, the spirit, the immortal part is eternal, without beginning or end.; there was no creation about it. Man was in the beginning with God. Intelligence was not created, nor indeed can it be. Every intelligence is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself.

_________________________________________________________________

JUMP IN & JOIN THE DISCUSSION!
ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

To respond to some of the questions raised in this Gospel Doctrine session,
or to make a comment or ask a question, email:
Reformmormons@aol.com

Your comments may be posted here throughout the coming week or shared at the Reform Mormonism Discussion Group--which you are welcome to join. If you are a member there, you may post your comment directly to the discussion group at http://reformmormonismdisc@yahoogroups.com.
______________________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS

related to this week's lesson

“The Book of Abraham” Chapter 3 (The Pearl of Great Price)
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3


The Doctrine & Covenants, Section 93
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/93


“The King Follett Discourse.” Joseph Smith last and greatest sermon, explaining the Mormon conception of the human mind/spirit as uncreated, eternal and coequal with God.
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm


"Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine"(edited by Gary James Bergera).
This excellent volume contains two excellent studies on the eternal uncreated nature of the human spirit: “The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought” by Van Hale, and “The Idea of Preexistence in Mormon Thought” by Blake T.Ostler.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/line.htm


"The Cultural Revolution: From the Decay of a Dying World Comes the Birth of a New Age" by William Call. A thought-provoking book of essays by a self-described Cultural Mormon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096347328X/qid=1098052014/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7370506-0179269?v=glance&s=books


Mormonism’s New Paradigm”
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/newmormonparadigm.htm_


“In The Beginning, or Let the Insanity Begin.” This essay explores in detail how Joseph Smith’s rejection of creationism positively affects philosophy and concepts of morality.
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/i


Reform Mormonism homepage
http://www.reformmormonism.org/

Sunday, October 10, 2004

We will return next Sunday (October 17th) with a new series lessons exploring doctines and concepts unique to Mormonism such as the eternal nature of the human mind, Free Agency, and the Fortunate Fall of Adam & Eve .

INTELLIGENCE & AFFECTION or KNOWLEDGE & LOVE: A Mormon Concept of Human Sexuality

Sunday, October 3, 2004

“For the joy of human love….”
(From the hymn “For the Beauty of the Earth”)

Most contemporary Mormons are renowned for their overly conservative approach to human sexuality. In recent decades, the leaders of Mormonism’s larger denominations have tended to align themselves with Evangelicals and Christian Fundamentalists in their views on this subject.


This is surprising considering that during the 19th and early 20th centuries what most set Mormons apart from others was their radical view of human sexuality. As the character of an LDS missionary in the recent film “Latter Days,” states: “Our ancestors were the original non-traditional families.”


Early Mormons believed that not only was sexuality a human attribute, it was also an attribute of the Gods. In fact, it was only through sexual union with another that an individual could progress towards Godhood. Within Mormonism marriage was not a rite administered by the Priesthood--as in Catholicism. Within Mormonism, marriage in fact became an Order of the Priesthood (See Doctrine & Covenants 132)--the highest Order. Thus, sexual union within marriage became the highest expression of religion.


Last week we explored the Mormon doctrine of the human soul--which is the union of the spirit/mind and body. Early Mormons also taught that there was no such thing as “immaterial matter”--meaning, that everything--including the spirit--has a material existence. Such a doctrine completely undermines the traditional notion that the human body and the human spirit are in conflict with one another; that the spirit is good and the body is somehow bad.
These unique Mormon doctrines set the foundation for early Mormonism’s positive view of human sexuality.


Nowhere is the early Mormon view of human sexuality presented more thoughtfully than in the writings of early Mormon Apostle Parley P. Pratt; therefore, in this week’s lesson, we have printed below extracts from his writings.


“Intelligence and Affection” was published in Nauvoo in 1840, and was distributed by the Mormon press and the Mormon missionaries as being representative of the liberal and enlightened Mormon views on human love and sexuality. “Intelligence” refers to the rational processes of the human mind, while “affection” was a euphemism not only for familial love and the love between friends, but also sexual love.


Excerpts from this classic early Mormon missionary tract are presented below. One wonders how contemporary Mormon attitudes towards sex might differ if more people were familiar with the writings of Parley P. Pratt and other founding fathers and mothers of Mormonism.

KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE:
THE FOUNDATION OF LOVE

“The human mind in infancy, like the body, is small and weak indeed. It neither possesses intelligence [knowledge] or affection [love] to any great degree; for the latter is the production of the former….


“The infant mind commences to expand, and continues to enlarge itself just in proportion to the truths that are presented for its food, and the time and opportunity it has to digest and comprehend them. If unassisted by other intelligences, it expands but very little, --all its powers remain in a great measure inactive and dormant.


“For instance, let an infant be cut off from all communication with other intelligences, let it grow to manhood entirely alone, and it still knows little more than in infancy…


“It is true, that, in this life the progress of the mind in intelligence, is not only gradual, but obstructed in various ways. It has to contend, not only with its own prejudices and the errors of an opposing world, but with innumerable weakness, temptations, cares, and troubles with which it is continually beset…


“In infancy, our love is as narrow as our intelligent capacity. But as our intelligence increases, so our affection grows, till from knowing and loving our mother, we begin to know and love the circle of our immediate kindred and family…As we advance in the knowledge of all our social connections, duties, dependences, relationships, and obligations, our affections still increase…Thus love, or affection is dependent upon knowledge, or intelligence, and can only be increased by an increase of knowledge.


“These two principles [knowledge and love] are the foundations, the fountains of all real happiness.

Discussion Questions:

Parley P. Pratt went to great lengths to link love and sexuality with the mind and with knowledge. What does this link say about the nature of love and emotions?


Pratt makes the case that an individual’s emotions and sexuality are linked to his/her environment, experiences, etc. while growing up and maturing. In other words, the foundation of one’s emotional makeup and sexuality is individualized and subjective.


If this is true, what would this imply about the various “commandments” regarding human sexuality that traditional religions often seek to enforce upon all of their adherents?
What would this imply regarding the concept of “sexual morality” in general?

SEXUAL REPRESSSION/ RESISTING HUMAN LOVE

“Some persons have supposed that our natural affections [sexual feelings] were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are ‘carnal, sensual and devilish,’ and therefore ought to be resisted, subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection, or progress in the spiritual life. In short, they should be greatly subdued in this world, and in the world to come entirely done away. And even our intelligence [knowledge] also. Such persons frequently inquire whither they shall recognize their kindred or friends in the life to come. They also caution themselves and others, lest they should love their child, their companion, their brother, sister or mother too well; for, say they, if you love them to well it will offend your God and he will take them from you.


“Such persons have mistaken the source and fountain of happiness altogether. They have not one correct idea of the nature of the enjoyments, or happiness of heaven, or earth; this life or any other. If intelligence [knowledge] and affection [human love] are to decrease to such a low ebb that we shall neither recognize or love our kindred and friends, then a stone, a block of wood, or a picture on the wall is as capable of the enjoyment of heaven as we are.


“So far from this being the case, our natural affections [sexual feelings/human loves] are planted in us by the Spirit of God, for a wise purpose; and they are the very mainsprings of life and happiness--they are the cement of all virtuous and heavenly society--they are the essence of charity, or love; and therefore, never fail but endure forever.


“There is not a more pure and holy principle in existence than the affection which glows in the bosom of a virtuous man for his companion; for his parents, brothers, sisters, and children….


“These pure affections are inspired in our bosoms, and interwoven with out nature by an all wise and benevolent being, who rejoices in the happiness and welfare of his creatures. All his revelations to man, touching this subject [human love, human sexuality] are calculated to approve, encourage and perfect them; that man, enlightened and taught of God, may be more free, more social, more cheerful, happy, kind, familiar, and lovely than he was before; that he may fill all the relationships of life, and act in every sphere of usefulness with a greater energy, and with a readier mind, and a more willing heart.

CELIBACY & SELF-DENIAL

“All the monkish austerity all the sadness and reserve, all the unsocial feelings and doings of priests, and monks, and nuns; all the longfacedness, unsocial sadness, groanings, sighings, and mortifications of secretaries, whether ancient convents, where men and women retire from all busy scenes and pleasures of life, to live a life of celibacy, self-denial and devotion; and whether in the more modern and fashionable circles of the camp meetings, or the ‘mourners bench.’


“All these, I say, are expressly and entirely opposed to the spirit and object of true religion; they are so many relics of superstition, ignorance, and hypocrisy, and are expressly forbidden and condemned by our Lord and Savior.

Discussion Questions:

Can you think of any ways in which celibacy and a negative view of human sexuality are linked to superstition, ignorance and hypocrisy?


Consider this: in Catholicism, one takes a vow of celibacy when entering the highest order of the Priesthood. Yet within Mormonism, the highest order of the Priesthood is the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. What does this say about the Mormon view of human sexuality?

BEING DISASTISFIED WITH YOUR NATURE/
PRAYING FOR GOD CHANGE YOU

“In all these things, man has mistaken the source of happiness; has been dissatisfied with the elements and attributes of his nature, and has tried, and sought, and prayed, in vain to make himself into a different being from what the Lord has wisely designed he should be…”


“…The man who, through a mistaken zeal, or through the influence of ignorant teachings or incorrect traditions, so far mistakes the object and purpose of his being, as to withdraw from all these; to shut himself from the world, and seek to overcome and subdue the natural affections [sexual feelings] with which God has endowed him, is not a religious man at all. On the contrary, he is opposing the will and commandments of God and neglecting the duties of religion…

Discussion Questions:

How do the ideas expressed above resonate with the religious concepts you were taught while growing up?


What is your reaction to these ideas now?

STUDY YOURSELF, KNOW YOURSELF

“Man, know thy self,--study thine own nature,--learn the powers of thy body,--the capacity of thy mind. Learn thine origin, thy purpose and thy destiny. Study the true source of thine own happiness, and the happiness of all beings with which thou art associated. Learn to act in unison with thy true character, nature and attributes; and thus improve and cultivate the resources within and around thee. This will render you truly happy, and be an acceptable service to your God. And being faithful over a few things, you may hope to be made a ruler of many thing….

DON’T PRAY THAT YOUR NATURAL AFFECTIONS BE CHANGED;
PRAY THAT THEY BE INCREASEED

“Know then, O’ Man, that aided and directed by the light of heaven the sources of thy happiness are within and around thee. Instead of seeking unto God for a mysterious change to wrought, or for your affections and attributes to be taken away and subdued, seek unto him for aid, and wisdom to govern, direct and cultivate them in a manner which will tend to your happiness and exaltation, both in this world and in that which is to come. Yea, pray to him that every affection, attribute, power and energy of your body and mind may be cultivated, increased, enlarged, perfected and exercised for his glory and for the glory and happiness of yourself, and of all those whose good fortune it may be to be associated with you…

Discussion Questions:

If one prays that one one’s sexual affection be strengthened and increased, what might this indicate about one’s conception of God? One’s conception of human nature? One’s conception of human relationships and human love? One’s conception of the body and spirit?

In your own past, would this approach have helped or hindered you in your perosnal progression and in your relationship with God?

THE ETERNAL EXLATION OF THE HUMAN MIND & BODY

“Having discovered and set forth in plainness the origin, purpose and destiny of man’s physical organization and the powers, attributes, energies, affections and capabilities of his intellect, we find him standing erect in God-like majesty, with organs of strength beyond the reach of death: and powers of thought, capable of spanning the heavens, and comprehending all things…”

Discussion Questions:

When envisioning humankind’s eternal destiny, most religious traditions focus on spirituality--meaning, immateriality. The above description is radically different--with its celebration of both the physical body and the mind. What is your reaction to the ideals expressed above?

REFORM MORMONISM

While other denominations within world-wide Mormonism have, over the past century and a half, retreated from the liberal, optimistic view of human nature and human sexuality embraced by many first generation Mormons, Reform Mormonism embraces this view.
When contemplating human nature and human sexuality, Reform Mormons tend to take a more rational, positive approach.


Reform Mormonism rejects the idea that God has legalistically issued a set of commands regarding human sexuality to which the individual must render mindless obedience. Such a notion seems out of harmony with the broader implications of Mormon theology--that there is no inherent contradiction between the mind/spirit and the body; that the individual is an eternally free and autonomous entity who, being in the image and likeness of God, has the ability to grow in knowledge and eventually progress towards Godhood.


“The Book of Mormon” teaches that men and women are that they might have joy. Joseph Smith taught that “happiness is the object of our existence.” (Interestingly enough, Joseph wrote this in a letter dealing with marriage and sexuality.) Sexuality plays an essential role in human happiness and fulfillment. One’s sexuality is not something to be sacrificed, repressed or overcome.

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

May every affection, attribute, power and energy of my body and mind be cultivated, increased, perfected and exercised for the glory of God, and for the glory and happiness of myself and those in my life.
____________________________________________________________________


To respond to some of the questions raised in thisGospel Doctrine session, or to make a comment or ask a question, email:Reformmormons@aol.com.

JUMP IN & JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

Your comments may be posted here throughout the coming week or shared at the Reform Mormonism Discussion Group--which you are welcome to join. If you are a member there, you may post your comment directly to the discussion group at http://reformmormonismdisc@yahoogroups.com.
________________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS

Related to this week’s lesson

Photo & Biographical information on Parley P. Pratt
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/prattpp1.htm

http://www.famousamericans.net/parleyparkerpratt/

On the writings of Parley P. Pratt
http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/appeal.html


“The Essential Parley P. Pratt”
http://www.signaturebooks.com/eppp.htm


“The Essential Joseph Smith”
http://www.signaturebooks.com/ejs.htm


“Rational Theology” by John Widstoe
http://www.signaturebooks.com/rational.htm


“The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion” by Sterling M. Mc Murrin
http://www.signaturebooks.com/theo.htm


______________________________________________________________________
The Reform Mormon Sacrament Prayer
Currently Reform Mormon practice is a home-based. This link presents a way in which Reform Mormons can celebrate the Sabbath, and also administer and partake of the Sacrament within their own households--either alone or with family and friends.
http://www.reformmormonism.org/observance/sabbath.htm

________________________________________________________________

NEXT WEEK’S LESSON:

"FOR THE BEAUTY OF THE EARTH:

The Mormon Concept of the Resurrection"

____________________________________________________________________

THE SPIRIT VERSUS THE FLESH: Choosing Between a Ghost & a Corpse

Sunday, September 26, 2004

“FISH GOTTA SWIM AND BIRDS GOTTA FLY”

Would it be ideal for a fish to fly? Or for a bird to live underwater?

Of course not. Each of these creatures has its own particular nature--a different physical makeup that functions in its own distinct way. It would be completely irrational to demand that a fish leave the water and take to the air, or that a bird cease flight and submerge itself in a lake. Only someone intent on perverting nature would insist in such a thing, since even the attempt would bring death to each of these creatures.

When trying to determine what is ideal for any living thing, the nature of that thing must be taken into consideration. For ideals to be valid, they must be achievable.

Before one can determine what is ideal for human beings, one must have some understanding of human nature. What is man? What is the essence of being human? In short, what is the soul of man?

SOUL MAN

For over two thousand years philosophers and theologians have taught that the soul of man is his spirit. This idea is so universal that today most people use the words spirit and soul interchangeably. Nearly all religions teach that the spirit is what is essential to being human, and their various systems of ideals and morals are based upon this concept.

But is the spirit really the soul of man? And if it is, what are the moral implications?

Before answering these questions, one must first understand what traditional religions and philosophies mean by the word spirit. Interestingly enough, the traditional doctrines regarding the spirit are derived not so much from the Bible as from the philosophies of the ancient Greeks.

WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH MATTER?

The Greek philosopher Plato (c.427?-347 BC) taught that above and beyond the material world was a divine, completely immaterial realm of pure “ideas.” The universe was nothing more than “an imperfect reflection or image of the divine world.” Because the physical world was forever changing and because matter was subject to decay, Plato considered the universe and everything in it to be inherently corrupt. He and his followers devised endless arguments and theories to distance all things virtuous (including God) from the physical realm.

It was taught that man was imperfect because he had a dual nature; that he was made up to two conflicting parts: a physical body and a spirit (also referred to as the mind.) The spirit, being immaterial, was considered the superior of the two parts, but during life man’s corrupt body exerted a terrible influence on it. Only at death, when the spirit was finally released from its corrupt physical prison, was it free to ascend to the divine, immaterial realm. Only in this purely spiritual state could the human soul hope to find true enlightenment, peace and fulfillment.

With the conquests of Alexander the Great, such ideas spread throughout the known world. The Jews tried resist the new philosophy, but Greek culture proved overwhelming. Eventually there arose Jewish philosophers such as Philo Judaeus, who incorporated Plato’s philosophy into Jewish thought and began re-inventing the ancient Israelite concepts of creation, God and human nature. By the end of the second century AD, what would become traditional Jewish and Christian theologies were in essence nothing more that the latest incarnation of Greek philosophy.

So it was is that nearly two thousand years later, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states: “In Christian theology the word [spirit] denotes...the intelligent and immaterial part of man...” Christian theologians have disagreed on minor points regarding human nature, but “the point of agreement, however, is that man is not reducible to matter.”

How do theologians and philosophers know this? How can they know it? Where is the evidence that such a thing as “an immaterial part of man” even exists? The very phrase itself (“immaterial part”) is a contradiction. For something to actually be “a part” of man (or of anything else) it must have a material or chemical existence, even if it is not discernable by the physical senses.

Theologians dismiss such thinking as being “too literal” or “too narrow.” They say that one must be more “open-minded” and “expansive” when discussing the nature of things spiritual. They may refer to the spirit as “existing outside of existence,” in much the same way as they speak of God “existing outside of existence.” But a phrase such as “existing outside of existence” twists the very concept of “existence” until it has no comprehensible meaning.

Discussion Questions:

If man’s spirit is “not reducible to matter,” then how can one actually know anything about it?

Can you think of anything else (the existence of which is a proven fact) that does not have a material existence--that does not exist on a chemical, elemental or atomic level?

Have I accepted the idea that my spirit and body are in conflict with one another?

If so, what has been the result of such thinking as far as my personal happiness is concerned?

How has this affected my relationships with others?

How has it affected my relationship with God?

MORMON APOSTLES WIEGHS IN ON
THE MATTER OF IMMATERIALITY

The first generation of Mormons broke completely with two thousands years of tradition concerning the nature of the spirit in relation to the material world. Two of Mormonism’s first apostles were brothers, Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt. In the late 1830’s, they began writing extensively on this subject. In fact, Mormonism’s earliest missionary tracts (the literature that Mormon missionaries distributed to investigators and potential converts) did not deal with the stories of the gold plates and the First Vision, but with a radical new understanding of the body and the spirit, and how this new understanding could change society. The ideas of the Pratts--particularly those of Parley--may have influenced the thinking of Joseph Smith, more than visa versa.

Parley P. Pratt understood how the orthodox Christian idea of an immaterial God was the foundation upon which rested traditional religion’s negative view of human nature, the human body and the material world:

“An opinion prevails that the material worlds, were formed from nothing; they serve a momentary purpose, connected only with our present state of existence, and are then annihilated,--that the life to come is a life purely spiritual, having no connection with or dependence on any thing material.

Hence the idea of a ‘God without body or part‘--men without flesh and bones--and a heaven beyond the bounds of time and space….Indeed, a world without food, clothing or any other substance, or property of which the mind can possible conceive. And hence too, the idea, that all materialists must necessarily be infidels.

…these are errors of the grossest kind--mere relics of mysticism and superstition, riveted upon the mind by ignorance and tradition…” (Parley P. Pratt, “Immortality and Eternal Life of the Material Body” 1840)

Orson Pratt dismissed all talk of an immaterial spirit as irrational nonsense. He proclaimed that the spirit, the mind and everything else related to man‘s being must have some relationship to matter and physical reality:

“That the spirit or mind has a relation to space, is evident from the fact of its location in the body. The body itself exists in space, therefore every particle of substance which it contains must exists in space. No point can be assumed in the body but what had a relation to the surrounding space or extension. Therefore spirit must have a relation to extension or it cannot exist in the body....what can be more unphilosophical, contradictory?….Grasp it if you can in your imaginations. Think of it existing where there is no space...Do not your judgments and every power of your minds revolt at the absolute absurdities and palpable contradictions? By this time, perhaps, you are ready to inquire can it be possible that any man in all the world could believe in such impossibilities? Yes, it is possible. These very absurdities now stand in bold relief, not only in the most approved philosophical works of modern times, but incorporated in the very ‘Articles of Religion’ which millions have received as their rule of faith.”

LIVING IN A MATERIAL WORLD

Over one hundred and fifty years after Orson Pratt made his observations, these “absurdities” continue to influence not only the thinking of those who are “religious” or “philosophical,” but of people in general.

Most people would feel insulted if someone referred to them as “materialistic.” After all, it is assumed people who are “materialistic” are overly concerned with money, houses, food, clothes, their appearance, their health and their love life--and that such these concerns are essentially unimportant.

On the other hand, most people would consider it a great compliment if they were called “spiritual,” because this would imply that they are sensitive; that they are selfless; that they are in touch with their inner-self and with the feelings of others; that they are somehow visionary, able to see beyond the surface of things, beyond the material realm.

But in practical terms what does any of this really mean?

Discussion Questions:

What are the consequences--morally speaking--of divorcing one’s self from “materialistic” concerns?

If that which makes us human really is an immaterial spirit, then what type of behavior should be expected of us? What ideals should we embrace?

CHOSING BETWEEN DEATH & DEATH

Human life and happiness is dependent upon understanding and accepting the material world. Food, drink, shelter from the elements, and care for the body in times of sickness--these are essential to human survival. Sexuality is the means by which the human race continues, and sexual intimacy is an essential and profound aspect of many of our most meaningful relationships. Far from endangering us, being fully engaged in this material existence enlarges us. In fact, to reject the material and physical as fallen, corrupt, sinful or unclean undermines not only our well-being and happiness but our very survival.

To teach that it is ideal for mankind to attempt to overcome physical existence in order to ascend to an immaterial purely spiritual state is the same as teaching that it is ideal for a fish to live out of water. Such a teaching is an attack on human nature and on mankind’s means of survival. The end result is death.

Traditional religion teaches that we are composed of two competing natures--the physical and the spiritual; that the body and the spirit are locked in battle with one another. Morality consists in gravitating toward the spiritual and the immaterial (so it is taught), in “overcoming” material concerns and in denying physical appetites and desires.

But the spirit and the physical body are both essential to life. The result of separating the two is always death.

Thus, traditional religion gives us a choice between a ghost and a corpse.

“BAD BOYS” VERSUS “GOOD BOYS”
or
ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG

This belief system has had an amusing result on popular concepts of morality.
Notice that the phrase “being a good boy,” when applied to an adult, usually brings to mind a dull, lifeless, repressed, passive, uninteresting “white bread type.

On the other hand, the title of “bad boy” is usually given to a charismatic, daring individual who is full of life, aggressive, exciting and fun. The stereotypical “bad boy” is often admired as one who “lives life to the fullest” while the stereotypical “good boy” is seen as the one whom life is passing by.

The phrase “only the good die young” is nothing more than a rational response to a belief system that pits the spirit against the flesh, which damns life on earth and extols life in another incomprehensible realm of pure spirit. By insisting that morality consists in choosing the spirit over the body, blind faith over reason, pain over pleasure, sadness in this world over happiness, self-abasement over self-interest, traditional theology has effectively made “goodness” seem like a bad idea.

THE SOUL OF MORMONISM

Joseph Smith rejected all immaterialism outright. He taught:

“All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it, but when are bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (Doctrine & Covenants 131:7-8)

Parley P. Pratt wrote:

“...some of the elements are tangible, or visible, and others invisible. Those which are tangible to our senses, we call physical; those which are more subtle and refined, we call spiritual.”

Joseph Smith elaborated on these concepts:

“... the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state that the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be moldering in the dust…"

Mormon philosophy presents human nature are a unified whole. Mormon scripture states:

“And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:15)

There is no dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh. Both have a material existence, and both are essential to human life. Separate one from the other and one no longer has a human being; one has a corpse or a ghost. Human existence and human happiness are possible only when the spirit and flesh are united as one.

"The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, received a fullness of joy. And when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy." (Doctrine & Covenants 93:33-34)

Contrary to traditional theology’s notion that the body was corrupt, within Mormonism the body is as much then soul as the spirit. In fact, Joseph Smith taught that only “in the flesh” could one experience life and happiness to their fullest extent:

“We came to this earth that we might have a body...The great principle of happiness consists in having a body.”

Discussion Questions:

How might the concept that the spirit and the body are the soul change my concepts of right and wrong, of what is moral and immoral?

How might this concept change my understanding of God and of my relationship with the Divine?

How might this concept change my understanding of other people and of current social issues?

REFORM MORMONISM

Reform Mormonism builds upon the above concepts. The classical Mormon view of human nature was extremely positive. While this positive approach to human nature and to the material world has been compromised by other denominations within Mormonism (in favor of a more Orthodox Christian view), it is fully and enthusiastically embraced by Reform Mormons. For this reason Reform Mormonism advocates a more rational and tolerant approach to such issues as human sexuality. The materialism of early Mormon theology and the use of reason in early Mormon literature and missionary tracts validates the positive view Reform Mormons have towards reason, rational thought and science.

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. The body and the spirit are the soul of man. Spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; when separated, one cannot receive a fullness of joy.
____________________________________________________________________

THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION & READERS' COMMENTS

From Jennifer: I read your latest gospel doctrine lesson. It sparked a thought from somewhere, I'm not sure where but hereare my thoughts on it:

"Would it be ideal for a fish to fly? Or for a bird to live underwater?"

This reminds me of the cartoon Spongebob Squarepants. Don't laugh. Well, OK go ahead and laugh, but just go with it. The cartoon takes place in a town called"Bikini Bottom" located at the bottom of the ocean. The funny thing is though, one of the characters, Sandy, is a squirrel! In order for her to live in Bikini Bottom she has to wear a scuba helmet, that looks more like something cartoonists portray Aliens wearing. Her house is this big dome that she some how was able to get all the water out, so when she is out in her yard she doesn't need the helmet, but her visitors have to wear a helmet filled with water to breath. It's crazy, I know! Purely fictional because a Squirrel could never live in the ocean.

"It would be completely irrational to demand that a fish leave the water and take to the air, or that a bird cease flight and submerge itself in a lake. Only someone intent on perverting nature would insist insuch a thing, since even the attempt would bring deathto each of these creatures."

I think this can apply to things other than just birds and fish (and squirrels). I think the very same thing could be applied to homosexuality. Some churches ( I won't mention any names, just note there are more than one) think that homosexuals can get married to the opposite sex and live happy lives. Wouldn't that be like forcing a bird to live in the water? Or a fish to live on land? Some say that, "Well, if they can't change and get married, then they should remain celibate." Therefore, denying themselves of life in a sense.

They can't live and be who they truly are because of this self denial. (I don't mean denial as in not admitting they're gay, but denying themselves the blessings of love and the happiness it brings.) There are some who claim they have changed; they are not gay and they do marry the opposite sex. That's great! It's like Sandy the Squirrel figuring out a way to live in the ocean. But more often than not, squirrels have to leave the ocean, and homosexuals have to stop denying who they really are. So to ask these people to live in water when they where meant to fly is basically telling them to stopliving, and stop being who you really are.

Would Joseph Smith ever want that for anyone? Probably not.

From R. Frederick Lauer: Jennifer, your remarks drove home a point. The traditional belief in the West is that human beings are essentially immaterial spirits trapped in fallen, sinful material (physical) bodies...therefore, it is virtuous to resist the appetites of the body and the demands and needs of lives on earth in favor of things that are "spiritual"--meaning, immaterial. The result is that self-denial becomes a virtue in and of itself.

Of course, self-denial is usually unpleasant. Therefore, according to many traditional religions and schools of spirituality, discomfort and pain become badges of honor. The more one suffers, the more righteous or "spiritual" one must be.

According to this way of believing, homosexuality becomes "the cross" that one must bear in order to please God. But what kind of God takes pleasure in burdening his children with symbolic impliments of torture? A living thing can only survive, prosper and experience joy by living according to its nature--by "fulfilling the measure of its creation" as it says in the LDS Endowment ceremony. To demand that any living thing deny its nature is to demand that it slowly committ suicide. The end result is that death becomes a value to be sought after, while life becomes an object of sacrifice

_______________________________________________________

JUMP IN & JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

To respond to some of the questions raised in thisGospel Doctrine session,

or to make a comment or ask a question, email:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

Your comments may be posted here throughout the coming week or shared at the Reform Mormonism Discussion Group--which you are welcome to join. If you are a member there, you may post your comment directly to the discussion group at http://reformmormonismdisc@yahoogroups.com.

________________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS

Related to this week’s lesson

Photo & biographical information on Parley P. Pratt
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/prattpp1.htm

Photo & biographical information on Orson Pratt
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/pratto1.htm

On the writings of Parley P. Pratt
http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/appeal.html

“The Essential Parley P. Pratt”
http://www.signaturebooks.com/eppp.htm

“The Essential Orson Pratt”
http://www.signaturebooks.com/eop.htm

“The Essential Joseph Smith”
http://www.signaturebooks.com/ejs.htm

“Rational Theology” by John Widstoe