THE FIRST COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

The following in another in a continuing series of lessons on the Reform Mormon Endowment. This lesson and the three that follow it will focus on the four covenants made in the Endowment.

WHAT IS REQUIRED:
PRIOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COVENANTS

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

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

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

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

However, in accordance with Reform Mormon philosophy, it is believed that each individual should know the exact nature and content of the four covenants made prior to celebrating the Endowment.

At the outset of the Endowment, Reform Mormons undergo a symbolic washing and anointing, indicating that they are leaving the outside world and the cares of every day life behind them and entering into a sacred space. However, prior to this portion of the ordinance, those gathered for the Endowment are given the following bit of instruction regarding the four covenants/obligations that will be made during the course of the ceremony:

“The obligations are serious commitments; covenants between you and God. They should be made thoughtfully, and with serious intent. They are designed to aide you in life, and to bring you joy. However, if you are not familiar with the covenants you will make, or are not prepared to make the covenants, as you understand them, do not proceed to receive your washing.”

In other words, unlike other traditions within Mormonism, prior knowledge and understanding of the covenants is essential. In fact, understanding the covenants and being willing to make them is the only qualification for celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment. The “worthiness” interview administered by the LDS Church (in which one must prove that one supports the LDS leadership, that one gives ten percent of one’s income to the LDS Church, and that one abstains from drinking, smoking and sex outside of a legal marriage) has no place within Reform Mormonism.

Understanding the four covenants and having a willingness to make them is what qualifies one to celebrate the Reform Mormon Endowment.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

If you experienced the Endowment in other Mormon traditions, did you feel fully prepared for the ordinance? Did you feel secure in your understanding of the covenants you would be asked to make? How did this understanding--or the lack of it--effect your experience?

LOVE OF GOD

The first covenant made in the Reform Mormon Endowment is to love God
with all of one’s heart, might, mind, and soul.

The wording of the covenant hearkens back to the ancient Israelite commandment found in the Hebrew Bible:

“ Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart. and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)

This concept also became central to Christianity as is evidenced in this story of Jesus, found in the Christian testament:

“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him [Jesus] a question, tempting him, and saying, ‘Master, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’“ (Matthew 22: 35-40)

The concept was central to early Mormonism, as is evidenced in the following revelation that Joseph Smith authored on August 7, 1831:

“Wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, saying thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength.” (Doctrine & Covenants 59: 5)

DISCUSSION QUESTION

Carefully re-read the above passages of scripture. While most people would tend to see love as a virtue, is it something that can be commanded? Why or why not?

DO HUMAN EMOTIONS RESPOND TO COMMANDS?

When one considers the entire quote from Deuteronomy, one might be conclude that even the authors of that book did not believe that love could be commanded. If loving God was as simple as merely obeying a command to love Him, then why the additional commandments to talk about that love throughout the course of one’s daily activities, to write down the commandment and post it on one’s front door--even to wear the words themselves as a “frontlet” between one’s eyes? It seems as if the ancient writers of Deuteronomy believed that one could force one’s self to love God if one constantly bombarded one’s consciousness with words of the commandment itself. To the modern mind this all looks like a primitive attempt at brainwashing--and an ineffectual one at that.

Since Christianity arose from Judaism, and early Mormon arose from Christianity, the idea that love could be commanded became part of both of these new religions.

The idea was founded on the central tenant of monotheism: one, all-powerful God created the human race. God has all power over humanity, and if they wish to escape His wrath, they will do as He commands. If God commands us to love him, then we better do so--or else! The principle involved here brings to a popular bit of satire often printed on T-shirts: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Of course, beatings cannot improve morale. And regardless of how powerful one believes God to be, love of God is not something that can be commanded or forced--no more than one can command a person to love someone else.

In fact, the entire Biblical narrative could be reduced to the following: An all-powerful God creates human beings in His image only to discover that because they are in His image, He is unable to control them. God wants humanity to love Him, but despite displays of anger and violence (the great flood, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues on Egypt), despite miraculous acts of salvation (parting of the Red Sea, the tumbling of Jericho’s walls), despite pleas and threats, God Himself is unable to control the human heart.

Individuals can only love God when they see for themselves the value of God; when they can comprehend and appreciate God’s traits as being virtuous according to their own understanding of what virtue is.

In the end, power has nothing to do with love. To love is to value, and humans by nature cannot be forced to value something or someone against the dictates of their own perception. As intelligent beings, we can only love that which we can understand and which we judge to be positive and good according to our personally held values.

WHAT KIND OF BEING IS GOD
...AND HOW DOES THAT EFFECT ‘LOVE OF GOD?’

Mormonism as a movement began in the late 1820’s as a defense of God’s power against the growing power of human beings. As a youth Joseph Smith seemed to sense that Enlightenment philosophy of natural rights, individual freedom, and reason over faith threatened the traditional Christian concept of one, all-powerful God. In writing “The Book of Mormon,” Joseph tried to reconcile much of Enlightenment philosophy with Christianity--and when he could not, he came down on the side of Christian orthodoxy.

But following the publication of “The Book of Mormon” and the founding of a church, Joseph’s natural curiosity regarding human nature and the Divine inspired him to continue searching, learning and rethinking his personal theology. Within a decade he began to completely reverse his youthful ideas regarding the nature of God. These reversals brought criticism upon him--not only from orthodox Christians (which criticism continues to this day), but also from many of his own followers.

By the end of his life, Joseph had completely rejected the idea that there was one all-powerful God who created all things. In his ground-breaking “King Follett Discourse,” in his “Book of Abraham,’ and in numerous writings that were published in later editions of his “Doctrine & Covenants,” Joseph Smith presented a new religion.

The central tenants of this new religion were that God was finite--bound by the laws governing time and space--and that the Divine and the human (Gods and humans) share a common nature. Joseph declared that the mind of man--”the eternal part”---was never created at all, but was “co-equal” with God. He taught that “God never had the power to create man” and that the very belief that God could create man, “lessens man in my estimation.” He went even further, teaching that the being humanity worships as God had once been human Himself, and that each of us must “learn to be Gods” ourselves. One aspect of human nature that Joseph championed above all others was the individual’s Free Agency (Free Will).

These distinctly Mormon principles became central to what religious historians have called “Classical Mormonism.” These distinctly Mormon principles are dramatized in the Reform Mormon Endowment, and it is in the context of these principles that the idea of loving God is presented.

LOVE OF GOD:
AN INDIVIDUAL’S RESPONSE TO DIVINE BENEVOLENCE

Drawing on the teachings of Joseph Smith, the Reform Mormon Endowment teaches that God’s work and glory is human progress and the exaltation of the individual. God is not presented as an powerful creator or as the “First Cause” of all things. Instead, God is presented as a loving, eternal parent, who wants His children (us) to grow up and enjoy all that He enjoys, but who also know that He cannot live His children’s lives for them.

Joseph Smith taught that “knowledge is what saves a man,” “the glory of God is intelligence,” and “a man cannot be saved in ignorance.”

In the dramatic portions of the Reform Mormon Endowment, God is depicted as directing human beings (symbolized in the characters of Adam and Eve) toward the knowledge that they need to progress and be happy. When Adam and Eve realize that God loves them, that He respects their agency, and is only concerned with their progress and happiness, they respond by expressing their love for God and pledging to love God always.

Love of God is not commanded. It is an individual’s honest emotional response to what he or she perceives as divine benevolence.

WHAT IS ONE LOVING WHEN ONE “LOVES GOD?”

Mormon scholar Terryl L. Givens has written that the outstanding characteristic of Mormon theology is that it “collapses the distance” between God and man, between the Divine and Human. In other words, the Human and the Divine became, more or less, one and the same in the Mormon scheme of things.

With that in mind, the individual could interpret the covenant to love God in several different ways--and all of them would be correct.

One could think of the covenant in a very traditional way: God is a personal being who has been gracious to you, and so in return, you feel love for God as tender, nurturing parent.

One could consider the covenant in light of the following: “As we now are, God once was; as God now is, we may become.” With this in mind, God could be seen as symbol human potential; love of God then becomes love for our humanity’s highest aspirations.

Orson Pratt (one of 19th century Mormonism’s most influential theologians and philosophers) said that he did not worship a personal God, but that he worshipped, revered and meditated upon “the attributes of God”--meaning the ideas concerning God’s intelligence, knowledge, virtue, justice, love, etc. Pratt taught that it these “attributes” were shared by all Gods, making them all one in purpose. Orson Pratt reasoned that by focusing on these “attributes,” the individual could learn to incorporate them into his or own character. With this approach in mind, the covenant to love God could be interpreted as a covenant to love those virtues and “attributes” that one associates with the Divine.

EVOLVING IDEAS REGARDING GOD & LOVE

Eternal Progression is at the heart of Reform Mormon. Change is one of the few constants in the universe. Throughout our lives, as each of us progresses in knowledge and understanding of our nature and of the universe in which we live and have our being, our ideas regarding God and love will change and evolve. When one first makes the covenant to love God, one may have very set ideas regarding the nature of both God and love. With time, these ideas will change. Indeed, if we grow and progress in knowledge, our ideas regarding those things should change.

Such change is a good thing.

It is the key to human happiness and fulfillment.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. In the past how have you interpreted the idea of “loving God?”

2. How have your ideas regarding “love of God” changed?

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

If this lesson gets you to thinking, please share your thoughts with our readership. Send them to:
reformmormons@aol.com

All view points and opinions are welcomed!

For more information on having the Reform Mormon Endowment presented in your area, email us at the above address. A document “Preparing for a Reform Mormon Temple Event” is now available.

THE USE OF SYMBOLISM IN THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

The First Reform Mormon Endowment is now available and will be celebrated this year for the first time. For the next several weeks, our lessons will focus on the Endowment. The following is the second installment in this series of lessons. For more information on celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment ceremony yourself, visit www.reformmormonism.org, or write us to reformmormons@aol.com.


THE USE OF SYMBOLISM IN THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

The dictionary gives the following definition for the word symbol:

“Something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign…

....A word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized.”

The Reform Mormon Endowments are a series of highly symbolic ordinances which are celebrated by Reform Mormons as they reach various stages of their lives. Presented as interactive dramas, the Endowments include many types of symbols—most of which are derived from Freemasonry. (As explained in our previous lesson, Joseph Smith—the first Mormon—became active in Freemasonry during the last few years of his life. Inspired by the theatricality of Masonic ritual, he incorporated many of its elements in the Endowment ceremonies that he developed shortly before his death.)

Reform Mormonism philosophy, theology and ethics are all founded upon the distinct Mormon concept of Eternal Progression. In the 1800’s, this concept was summed up in the famous Mormon saying:

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

Reform Mormons view life as part of an eternal process of progression, in which the individual, by virtue of his or her Free Agency (Free Will), and by virtue of gaining more knowledge and greater understanding, grows and becomes more like God. The Reform Mormon Endowments comprise a symbolic journey through life. Through the use of various types of symbols, principles are taught that can help individuals live happy, productive and meaningful lives.

Unlike other Mormon denominations, Reform Mormonism teaches that these symbols are human creations; they are not dictated by God, nor do these symbols, in and of themselves, confer divine authority, power or virtue. In other words, the Endowment ceremonies are not required to “get into heaven,” to “be saved,” or to please God. The importance of the symbolism in the Endowments rests solely with the individual. One may find many layers of personal meaning in the symbols or one may not.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. What has been the sole of symbols and symbolism in your religious life up until this point?

2. What is the advantage of viewing religious symbols are man-made versus taking these symbols as divinely mandated?

3. What can be some of the downfalls of taking symbols literally?

ADAM & EVE AS SYMBOLIC CHARACTERS

As in other Mormon traditions, the Reform Mormon Endowment is an interactive drama, a symbolic journey through life using the story of Adam and Eve. In the dramatic portions of the ordinance, there are three characters: Adam, Eve and God.

Contrary to the currents customs of many Mormon denominations, 19th century Utah Mormonism interpreted the Biblical accounts of creation, Adam and Eve and their so-called “Fall,” as being completely symbolic. Utah Mormon leader Brigham Young taught on many occasions that Adam was not “an adobe brick,” thus debunking the common assumption that he had actually been created from “the dust of the earth.” Young insisted that Adam and Eve were “created” in the same way, and upon the same principles, that all humans are “created”—meaning they were “born to parents.”

Reform Mormonism accepts this idea and builds upon it. The characters of Adam and Eve are just that: they are literary characters, not historical figures. They symbolize all human beings. Thus, as in earlier versions of the Endowment ceremonies, participants are told to think of themselves as if they were Adam and Eve.

In the various Utah Mormon traditions (the LDS and the FLDS churches), it is emphasized that Adam represents all males, and that Eve represents all females. Thus a central aspect of Endowment in those traditions, is mandating traditional gender roles. For instance, while Adam (meaning males) take an oath of obedience to God, Eve (meaning females) take an oath to either obey or “follow the council” of their husbands. This also reinforces the LDS and FLDS belief that heterosexual marriage is a legal requirement demanded by God Himself in order for the individual to become life God.

Within Reform Mormonism, there is not such oath because the genders are not seen as dependent upon one another. Eternal Progression is the result of individual initiative, learning and growth. Within Reform Mormonism, marriage—both heterosexual and homosexual—can be eternal, but it is for the purpose of companionship and personal happiness—not as mere obedience to some imagined divine legal system.

In the Reform Mormon Endowments, a man may portray the character of Adam and a woman the character of Eve—but if circumstances are such that two people are not available, a man may portray Adam alone or a woman may portray Eve alone. The characters of Adam and Eve—either together or separately—symbolize any and all human beings.

The third character in the Reform Mormon Endowments symbolizes God, or the Gods. As Reform Mormons openly accept the unique Mormon doctrine of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother, the character of God may be portrayed by either a man or a woman.

In the end, the meaning of the symbolism does not change because of the gender of the person or people portraying these symbolic characters.

Because the symbolic nature of the Garden of Eden story is emphasized, there is no danger of Reform Mormons mistakenly thinking that what they are seeing presented is a recreation of an actual historical event. In every sense, the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story as presented in the Reform Mormon Endowment is a symbolic journey through life, applicable to all human beings.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. If you have experienced the Endowment in other Mormon traditions, what was your reaction to the way the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story was presented? Did you take it symbolically or literally? What was the result of doing so? Was it positive or negative?

2. If you took the story as literal history, how did this affect your thoughts and feelings on such things as science, the Theory of Evolution, gender roles within the family and within society at large?

3. What is your reaction to the concept of taking the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story as being purely symbolic?

SETTING A SPACE APART FROM THE WORLD

In all Mormon traditions, the Endowment has been presented either in a special temple, or in a space that has been set apart and dedicated for that purpose. For instance, the first Endowment ceremony was presented in the attic storage room above Joseph Smith’s red brick store in Nauvoo, Illinois. The attic was decorated for the ceremony and then dedicated through prayer as a sacred space “set apart” from the rest of the world. After Joseph’s death, when construction of the Nauvoo Temple was completed, Brigham Young decorated the Temple’s attic floor and set it apart from the rest of the Temple as a sacred space in which the Endowment could be presented.

Reform Mormons do not currently build temples. Instead, any space that can accommodate the Endowment ceremony may be dedicated by prayer before hand, and set apart as a sacred space. Once the Endowment has been presented, the space may return to its normal uses.


SYMBOLIC WASHINGS AND ANNOINTINGS

Mormonism in the 19th century incorporated many elements of ancient Israelite worship in its ceremonies and ordinances. Chief among these was the practice of going through a washing and anointing of the body before entering a temple or dedicated space. According to the Bible, the ancient Israelite Priests were washed and anointed before entering the Temple or Tabernacle to perform religion ordinances.

In Reform Mormonism a symbolic washing and anointing is performed privately on each person before they celebrate the Endowment. This washing and anointing is done with the utmost modesty. Participants in the Endowment dress completely in white clothes of their own choosing. A white pancho-like covering (traditionally nick-named “a shield”) is placed over their clothing, to protect the clothes themselves. Using a few drops of water on the fingers of the person administering the ordinances, the participant’s body is symbolically washed and blessed. The participant then undergoes a similar ordinance of being anointed with oil, with a series of blessings being bestowed on the person.

Through this symbolic ordinance, the participant is blessed and set apart from the mundane routine of daily life, in preparation for celebrating the Endowment.

SIGNS AND TOKENS

Historically, the elements of Mormon Endowment ceremonies that have received the greatest attention—and criticism—from those outside of Mormonism have been the use of signs and tokens. These are also key elements in Masonic rites, and Joseph Smith lifted them right out of Masonic ritual with little or any changes at all.

WHAT IS A TOKEN?

What exactly is a token? The dictionary gives the following definitions:

1. something serving to represent or indicate some fact, event, feeling, etc.; sign: as in“Black is a token of mourning.”

2. a characteristic indication or mark of something; evidence or proof: as in “Malnutrition is a token of poverty.”

3 a memento; souvenir; keepsake: as in “ The seashell was a token of their trip.”

4. something used to indicate authenticity, authority, etc.; emblem; badge: As in “Judicial robes are a token of office.”

As explained in our previous lesson, a token in Medieval Masonic guilds consisted of a special secret handgrip or handshake that a mason would give to his foreman to communicate his level of training in stone masonry and thus his pay scale for work done.

With the development of Freemasonry during the Enlightenment, secret handshakes were developed as tokens of fraternity.

In the Endowment ceremonies of LDS of FLDS Mormonism, as series of Masonic-like handshakes are used as tokens or proofs that one has advanced through the various Priesthood offices of the church. Because the use of tokens is often taken literally within these Mormon traditions, critics have often attacked the LDS and FLDS Churches for teaching that one can only be admitted into heaven if one can give “secret handshakes.”

In the Reform Mormon Endowment, there is only one token and its purpose is completely symbolic. It represents nothing more than the individual’s spiritual connection to God and to others, and this symbol is used ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CEREMONY ITSELF. In other words, Reform Mormonism utterly rejects the mistaken notion that one’s progression is dependent on learning a particular handshake.

For thousands of years, human beings of all cultures have developed various handshakes and handclasps as gestures of greeting and goodwill. In the context of the Reform Mormon Endowment, the token is used to convey a feeling of goodwill towards and connection with God, with others and with the eternal aspect of all things—nothing more and nothing less.

WHAT IS A SIGN?

The dictionary gives several definitions, but what concerns us here in the use of sign in the context of religious ceremonies. The definitions that relate to this are:

…a motion or gesture used to express or convey an idea, command, decision, etc.: Example: “Her nod was a sign that it was time to leave.”

….to mark with a sign, esp. the sign of the cross.

…to obligate oneself by signature: Example: “He signed with another team for the next season.”

Many religions use symbolic arm and hand gestures as signs of devotion—the most famous being the sign of cross that Catholics and other Christians use in their worship and devotions. Within certain Christian and Jewish traditions, a minister, priest or rabbi may raise his arm and hand in a particular way when pronouncing a particular blessing on a congregation. Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians may raise their hands above their heads in certain ways as a symbolic sign that they are open and receptive to the Holy Ghost.

In the court systems of many nations, a person being sworn in as a witness may raise his arm to the square as a sign or symbol of his honesty and integrity.

Those celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment make a series of four covenants with God—each related to the four principles of Reform Mormonism: faith, knowledge, revelation and restoration.

When making each of these covenants, participants make a sign using their arms and hands. There is a different sign for each of the four covenants. (These covenants will be discussed at length in the next four lesson.) Just as a person in court use the right arm to make the sign of the square when “swearing to tell the truth,” so those celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment make certain signs while making the four covenants.

The universal symbol for Reform Mormonism is the drawing of the compass (a V shape) within a circle. The visual elements that make up this symbol can be rearranged to make two other symbols. Thus this one visual symbol actually contains four visual symbols. Each of these visual symbols is related to the principles of faith, knowledge, revelation or restoration.

The signs used in the Reform Mormon Endowment are physical representations of these visual symbols. Part of the instruction given in the Endowment is an explanation of how these visual elements can symbolize the four principles of Reform Mormonism.

Just as raising the right arm to the square symbolizes honesty, and just as making the sign of the cross symbolizes reverence for the death of Christ on the cross, so the use of these particular gestures—these signs—symbolize one’s commitment to the four principles of Reform Mormonism. These symbolic gestures are used only when celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment and within one’s own private devotions.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. If you have experienced the Endowment in other Mormon traditions, what was your honest reaction to the use of signs and tokens in those traditions?

2. What is your reaction to the use of signs and tokens in the Reform Mormon Endowment as explained above?

3.With regard to the use of signs and tokens, do you perceive a difference between the Reform Mormon tradition and other Mormon traditions?


JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Feel free to share your opinions, ideas and insight. Send thoughts to:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

All views are welcomed!

THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

The First Reform Mormon Endowment is now available and will be celebrated this year for the first time. For the next several weeks, our lessons will focus on the Endowment. For more information on celebrating the Reform Mormon Endowment ceremony yourself, visit www.reformmormonism.org, or write us to reformmormons@aol.com.


“Jews have Bar Mitzvah, Catholics have Confirmation and Mormons have….the Endowment?” —“Newsweek,” 1990

Through the course of Mormon history, the Endowment has become the religion’s central ceremony.

While many assume that the ordinance has remained the same since Joseph Smith first developed it in the 1840’s, the truth of the matter is that the there have many versions of the Endowment over the past 150 years. While the form of the ordinance has remained fairly consistent (an interactive drama in which participants make a serious a commitments, done special clothing and learn a series of symbolic signs and token), the content and meaning of the ordinance has changed dramatically. Today there are as many different versions of the Endowment are there are denominations and sects within worldwide Mormonism.

The commitments (or covenants) which are found in the various Endowment ceremonies that now exist tend to reflect the values and the theology of the Mormon denomination presenting the ceremony.

For instance, in the Endowment ceremony presented in LDS Mormon Temples, the covenants center on obedience to commandments, the sacrificing of all that one has (“even one’s own life if necessary”) for the sake of the LDS religion, and consecrating all of one’s earthly belongings to the LDS Church for the sake of building “the Kingdom of God on the earth.” Since LDS Mormons believe that their church is “the only true Church,” the entire LDS Endowment centers on strengthening one’s connection to that organization, its leaders and program.

Among Fundamentalist Mormons, the Endowment is quite different. Since Fundamentalist Mormonism is focused on such practices as polygamy and separating one’s self from the world at large, the covenants made in their version of the Endowment reflect these concepts. Nineteenth century sexual mores, in which wives swear obedience to husbands, are featured. Other covenants emphasize separating from society at large and become part of a distinctly religious community.

In addition both LDS and Fundamentalists Mormons have a highly legalistic view of God and divine authority. Both groups believe that one must go through their Endowment ceremony in order to please God and enter into His presence in eternity. In short, you have to submit to their Endowment ceremony in order to “get to heaven.” So important is this belief, that LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons go through their Endowment ceremonies again and again on behalf of dead relatives and friends who didn’t submit to the ordinance while alive.

WHAT TYPES OF COVENANTS ARE FEATURED IN THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENTS?

The Reform Mormon Endowments are completely different in content and tone from the Endowment ceremonies of LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons.

Reform Mormons do not believe that any church or organization is—or can be—the “only true church.” Therefore obedience and faithfulness to a church or community have no part in the Reform Mormon Endowments.

Because Reform Mormonism teaches that all human beings are equal—regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation—the Reform Mormon Endowments contain no covenants regarding gender or sex roles. The concept of the individual is paramount throughout the ordinance.

Reform Mormons do not believe in a God who demands worship or obedience. Reform Mormons envision a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother who expect their children (us) to be rational, and who want us to live freely, formulating values for ourselves, acting in harmony with those values, and accepting the consequence of our actions. Within Reform Mormonism, obedience to commandments is not seen as especially ethical. Indeed, Reform Mormonism teaches that thoughtless obedience—even when directed toward God—can undermine ethics, values, morality and progress. Throughout life, one must constantly think for one’s self, ask questions and act with integrity in order to grow, progress and become more Godly.

Thus the four covenants in the Reform Mormon Endowments consist of:

—A covenant to love God, and to act in harmony with one’s values

—A covenant to continually seek after knowledge and to live to integrity.

—A covenant to always be open to further inspiration and revelation, and to seek a closer relationship with God and with others in one’s life.

—A covenant to always see the eternal aspect in all things: in others, in the world around one and in one’s actions.

The principles underlying these covenants make the experience of the Reform Mormon Endowment something quite different in tone and meaning from the Endowments presented by other Mormon denominations.

THE HISTORY OF THE ENDOWMENT

To understand the history of the Endowment, one must first have a basic understanding of Freemasonry. While many LDS theologians, historians and apologists deny any connection between Mormonism and Freemasonry (or else they downplay the importance of that connection), Reform Mormons freely admit that Joseph Smith borrowed freely from Masonic ritual as he developed the first Endowment ceremonies in the early 1840’s.

During the Middle Age, there was a building boom throughout Europe. Great churches and cathedrals were being built in England, France and Germany. Masons (those who labored in stone work and carpentry) were in great demand. But this was also a period in history in which most people were illiterate, unable to read or even write their names. Added to this was the fact that there was no common language throughout Europe.

Masons were allowed to travel freely throughout Europe looking for work. Guilds arose among the Masons. An illiterate Mason traveling from one country to another, being unable to speak the language of the country in which he was seeking work, would present himself to the foreman at the job site. He would then greet the foreman with a special sign (usually an upraised hand, with the fingers spread in a certain fashion) and special handshake—called a token. These signs and tokens were universal among European masons, but kept secret from others outside the guild. The sign and token was the way a mason in the Middle Ages could communicate to a foreman the level of his training in masonry. When it was time for a mason to be paid, he could also give these signs and tokens to the person issuing the pay at the work site. In this way, the person issuing the pay would know what the mason’s salary should be based on his level of training. Because the use of signs and tokens easily lent itself to fraud (a non-mason might go to a worksite and present himself as a qualified mason), and because a person’s livelihood was at stake, when one finished a level of training in masonry and was given the signs and tokens, he might also take an oath to never show those signs and tokens to anyone outside the guild, with his life being forfeited should he break that oath. Thus a tradition of rather gruesome and gory “penalties” developed among some of the guilds.

Centuries later, during the period of the Enlightenment, the symbolism of signs and tokens—as well as the concept of masonry itself—was taken by philosophers and thinkers and became the basis for what would become the world’s largest “secret society.” These philosophers championed reason, science, the arts and progress, as well as the liberty and rights of the individual. Just as the free masons of the Middle Ages worked at building beautiful new structures, these philosophers and thinkers saw themselves as building a new and better society. They created signs, tokens and penalities, and an elaborate symbolic interactive drama (centered on the building of Solomon’s temple) as the ceremony through which others might join their organization—the Freemasons.

Freemasonry was very popular in Colonial America. Most of the U.S. Founding Fathers and those who planned and lead the revolution against England were Freemasons. Masonic lodges were found in virtually every American town and hamlet. Many Revolutionary War battles were planned in the meetings of these lodges. Masonic symbolism was incorporated in the architecture, art and currency of the new nation. (Just visit Washington DC, or examine a U.S. dollar bill.)

By the 1820’s, Masonic lodges were the central meeting places for men in most U.S. towns and cities. Meanwhile American church membership was at an all-time low. In the mid-1820’s religious revivalism burst forth on the western frontier, and many revivalist preachers targeted Freemasonry as an enemy of the church.

Upstate New York—the region in which Mormonism was born—was ablaze with revivals…and with political intrigue regarding Freemasonry. Just a few miles down the road from the home of Joseph Smith’s family, a former Freemason who published a book revealing the organization’s secret ceremonies, disappeared. Though no one was ever convicted for his murder, it has generally been assumed that members of the local Masonic lodge abducted and murdered him, and then disposed of the body. Suddenly the most respected organization in America was seen as diabolical, anti-Christian and un-American.

Young Joseph Smith was caught up in the anti-Mason hysteria. When writing “The Book of Mormon,” he wrote against “secret combinations”—a code for Freemasons and their like.

However, by the early 1840’s when Joseph was in his mid-30’s and the mayor of the largest city in Illinois (Nauvoo), his attitude toward Freemasonry had turned 180 degrees.

The Mormons of Nauvoo founded the largest Masonic lodge in the state. The Mormon Temple under construction in Nauvoo was virtually no different from any large American church, but Joseph began incorporating Masonic symbolism into its design. Enthralled by the romance of the Masonic drama—which centered on the building of Solomon’s temple—Joseph took the elements of Masonic ritual (signs, token, penalties, the putting on of ritual clothing, an interactive drama) and began creating a new Mormon ordinance.

Called the Endowment, Joseph first administered the ordinance to his closest friends and relatives in the attic above his Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. He explained that when the Nauvoo Temple was finished, this Endowment ceremony would be presented in the attic level of the temple to other faithful Mormons.

Those who received the Endowment in the attic of Joseph’s store formed a special Quorum within Mormonism. In was to this small select group that Joseph first introduced his radical new ideas about the nature of God, man, matter and the universe. Through the Quorum, members expected to delve into “the mysteries of Godliness.” The symbolic signs and tokens were incorporated into the Quorums prayer meetings and study groups.

Joseph was murdered before construction of the Nauvoo Temple was completed. Even among members of the Endowment Quorum, there was disagreement on just how the Endowment ceremony should be incorporated into the life of the Temple and the Mormon community at large.

Following Joseph’s death, the Mormon community split among several people contending for leadership. The largest group followed Brigham Young—who was a member of the special Quorum. When the Nauvoo Temple was completed, Brigham Young and his Quorum of Twelve Apostles administered the Endowment to hundreds of other Mormons in the building’s attic. When not being used for the Endowment ceremony, the temple’s Celestial Room became a place where Endowed Mormons held feasts, celebrations and dances.

Several decades would pass before Brigham Young had a uniform version of the Endowment ordinance written down. Many historians now think that until that time, there may have been variations in the way the ordinance was presented in various Utah communities. The Endowment as it was finally written down probably reflected the beliefs and values of Brigham Young and the corporate LDS Church, as much as it did the original intent of Joseph Smith.

Until the early twentieth century, there were actually two Endowment ceremonies administered by the LDS Church. The first was administered earlier in life; the second was administered later toward the end of one’s life, in preparation for death. By the 1920’s, the LDS Church no longer administered the second Endowment to members generally. Today the LDS Church no longer makes it know that a second Endowment ever existed.

Throughout its history, the LDS Church has continually changed its Endowment ceremony to reflect its changing theology and organizational needs. The last major changes were introduced just two years ago (2005) in the Washing and Anointing portion of the ceremony. Previously, in 1990, the most sweeping changes in the Church’s history were introduced. The use of penalties was dropped altogether, as was the covenant which required women to “obey their lord—that is, their husbands.” In addition large dramatic sections that presented Christian ministers as servants of Satan were dropped.


HOW DO THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENTS DIFFER FROM LDS ENDOWMENTS?

Reform Mormons believe that all ordinances are human inventions. God does not institute rituals and does not demand that people submit to certain ceremonies.

This is the exact opposite of the way LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons view ordinances. Reform Mormons believe that any individual can lead an ethical life, progress and enter the presence of God in eternity (what other might call “going to heaven”) without any ordinances, rituals or religious affiliation whatsoever. Humans share a common nature with God; each individual is an eternal Free Agent, co-equal with God, and ordinances (or the lack of them) have no effect whatsoever on one’s progress.

For Reform Mormons, ordinances are the means by which we celebrate and commemorate our values and our vision of Deity, as well as our own potential. Through celebrating the Endowments, an individual—in the company of others who share his or her basic values—can express a formal commitment to those values.

Within Reform Mormonism there are four different Endowment ceremonies which are celebrated at various stages of one’s life.

The First Endowment is available to anyone aged sixteen or older. (Those under the age of eighteen must have permission of a parent or guardian.) Following Mormon tradition, this First Endowment is presented as an interactive drama, using the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as its basis. As explained above, the four covenants made in the this First Endowment have to do with love of God, the seeking of knowledge, being open to further inspiration and revelation, and seeing the eternal nature of all things.

The Second Endowment is available to Reform Mormons who are at least forty years of age, and have celebrated the First Endowment. The Second Endowment explores the principles underlying the four covenants made in the First Endowment, but from the prospective of someone who is older and are at a different stage of personal progression.

The Third Endowment is available to Reform Mormons who have celebrated the previous two and are sixty years old. The Fourth Endowment is celebrated later, in preparation for death.

The Reform Mormon Endowments use the symbolism of signs and a token, but there are no penalties. Unlike the LDS and Fundamentalist Mormon Endowments, these signs and tokens have not been lifted whole clothe from Freemasonry, and so the nature of their symbolism in relation to Reform Mormon principles and values is easily seen and understood.

As in other Mormon traditions, participants wear white clothing, but the donning of the caps, robes, sashes and aprons (borrowed from Scottish Freemasonry) are not part of the Reform Mormon Endowment.

While the LDS and Fundamentalist Endowments seem strange, mysterious, perplexing—and thus troubling to many, this is not the case with the Reform Mormon Endowment. The purpose of the ordinance is to inspire, to provoke deeper thinking regarding one’s own life, progression and relationship with God and others. The intent behind the ordinance is that it be beautiful and meaningful to the individual, presenting ideas and concepts that one can actually use in one’s every day life.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Have you experienced the Endowment as administered in other Mormon denominations? If so, how did the experience affect you? What elements inspired you? Were there elements that troubled you, or affected you negatively?

2. What has been the place of ordinances or rituals in your life?

3. What is your reaction to the connections between Freemasonry and the early Mormon Endowment?

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Feel free to share your answers to these questions with other. Simply email your answers to: reformmormons@aol.com. All views are welcomed. Your answers may be printed here and at the Yahoo Reform Mormonism Discussion Group.

NEXT LESSON: “The Value of Symbolism and its place in the Reform Mormon Endowments”

THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE: Living in an Increasingly Interesting World

More often than not, “complexity” is thought of as something negative. People often lament the complexity of the modern world. Many say that they long to return to a simpler time, when life was less demanding and when things seemed easier to understand.

Individually we may look back longingly to some past chapter in our lives: our childhood, the first time we were in love, or those days when our children were young and our relationships with them seemed so simple. As a society we might think of some past time period as a more simple age in which right and wrong were more clearly defined, in which roles and expectations seemed universal and less open to change or debate. Human beings in general often look to some mythic past and dispensation as a time in which human nature was innocent, untainted and pure. The Garden of Eden story is an example of one such myth.

It’s completely understandable that we often wish we could return to a simpler time. Life increasingly puts greater demands on all of us. Our relationships with parents, spouses, lovers, children and friends seem to be in an eternal state of flux and change. With each passing year of life, standards and ideas that we previously considered eternal and unchanging are often challenged; in response, we make subtle alterations to our cherished notions of right and wrong until the day finally comes when we realize our notions have changed completely.

This process can leave us feeling exhausted—intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. Sometimes we find ourselves wishing and praying to be “restored” to an earlier, simpler, innocent and less complex life.

But if we could go back to a more simple state of mind, would we be any happier? What bit of hard-earned knowledge or wisdom would we be willing to give up?

A clue might be found in the often expressed sentiment, “If only I could go be young again, but know what I know now….”

We might long for restored youth and energy, for that sense of “anything being possible,” but few of us want the ignorance that is part and parcel of being young. As complex (and frustrating) as our current existence may seem, when the day is done most of us may be more content with this complexity than we imagine.

The Book of Mormon teaches that “there needs be opposition in all things.” Opposition is inherent in existence, in nature itself. Opposition was not created by God or any other power. The universe is a composite of millions of contrasting entities, each with its own nature. Opposition is simply a fact of life. It can never be completely overcome; it cannot be obliterated. Indeed, one of the outstanding concepts in early Mormon theology was the radical notion that if there was no opposition, there would be no existence; that the purpose of human existence—human joy—would be impossible without experiencing opposition in all things.

We are, each of us, an eternal intelligent being with a will of our own. We are, each of us, a free agent living in a universe that brims with opposition. This is not a bad thing; it is not a state from which we should pray for deliverance. It is only through embracing the opposition and complexity of existence that we can function as human being beings, thus growing and progressing in accordance with our eternal and uncreated nature.

Joseph Smith—the first Mormon—taught that the individual has a mind capable of understanding the universe in which he/she lives, moves and has his/her being. Joseph taught that the human mind was capable growing in knowledge, that “the day will come when you will comprehend even God.”

“Complexity” is not something to be lamented, but embraced and celebrated.

Mormon theologian John A. Widtsoe in his 1915classic book Rational Theology wrote:

“….in our universe, as we conceive it to be constituted, increasing complexity would seem to be the great resultant law of the operation of universal forces. This is the great law of nature, to which every living thing must conform, if it is to be in harmony with all other things…The law of increasing complexity is fundamental. Since man is constantly being acted upon and acting upon matter and energy, he must himself be brought under the subjection of the great law. That is, under normal conditions, he will increase in complexity. As man observes phenomena and reasons upon them and applies them he grows in knowledge. Where he formerly had one fact to use, he now has many. This is the essence of his complexity….the great law becomes a law of increasing power, of progressive mastery over the universe. For that reason, the law expressing the resultant of the activities of universal forces is often called the law of progression.

“The degree of a man’s growth or progression will depend upon the degree his will is exercised intelligently upon the things about him…the operation of the will, under normal conditions, adds power to man….the increasingly complex man grows in power and strength toward perfection, in an increasingly interesting world…

“Nature is inexhaustible in the possible number of inner-relations among matter, energy and intelligence. It follows, therefore, that man will forever be able to add knowledge unto knowledge, power unto power, or progress unto progress. This law of progression is the great law of the universe, without beginning and without end, to which all other laws contribute.”

What are your thoughts on Progression and Complexity. Share with with our readers. Email them to: Reformmormons@aol.com. All views are welcomed!

A the 2007 Reform Mormon Directory

If you'd like to be listed in the Reform Mormon directory, email the following information by Jamuary 30th:

FIRST & LAST NAMES

CITY, STATE & COUNTRY in which you live

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS


Only those who are listed in the directory will recieve a copy via email on Feb. 1st.

If you're interested, send the above information to:

reformmormons@aol.com

COMPREHENDING GOD, COMPREHENDING OURSELVES

Recently the front page of “USA Today” featured the following story on the results of a new Gallup survey:

“Forget denominational brands or doctrines or even once-salient terms
like ‘Religious Right.’ Even the oft-used ‘Evangelical’ appears to
be losing ground….Believers just don't see themselves the way the media and
politicians — or even their pastors — do, according to the national
survey of 1,721 Americans, by far the most comprehensive national
religion survey to date.

‘Written and analyzed by sociologists from Baylor University's
Institute for Studies of Religion, in Waco, Texas, and conducted by
Gallup, the survey asked 77 questions with nearly 400 answer choices
that burrowed deeply into beliefs, practices and religious ties and
turned up some surprising findings:

“Though 91.8% say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic
force, they had four distinct views of God's personality and
engagement in human affairs. These Four Gods — dubbed by researchers
Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — tell more about
people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than
the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red
state/blue state…Sociologist Paul Froese says the survey finds the stereotype that
conservatives are religious and liberals are secular is ‘simply not
true. Political liberals and conservative are both religious. They
just have different religious views.’

“’…The Four Gods breakdown is helpful if you are trying to understand
religion's impact on society by how people see themselves from the
inside, not by observations from outsiders,’ says John Green, a
senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

“…says Baylor's Christopher Bader, "you learn more about
people's moral and political behavior if you know their image of God
than almost any other measure. It turns out to be more powerful a
predictor of social and political views than the usual markers of
church attendance or belief in the Bible."

It should come as no surprise that a person’s image of God could serve as a key to understanding their character. For most people, their conception of God not only symbolizes their highest ideals, virtues and aspirations, but also plays a foundational role in their undesrtanding of existence itself—including their own nature.

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith—the first Mormon—laid out a radically new (and by the standards of traditional monotheism, completely blasphemous) vision of Deity. Though he admitted that this vision of Deity might cause controversy, he insisted that his purpose in presenting it, was to bring understanding to people---not merely an understanding of God, but more importantly of themselves:

“If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” (Joseph Smith, April 1844)

This is a very interesting statement given certain popular religious traditions. Common among these is the idea that God lives in one’s heart and that if one looks within one’s self one will find God. In other words, understand yourself and you will come to understand God—at least to the degree possible for human beings.

But Joseph taught just the opposite. Toward the end of his life, he rejected the above idea completely. In “The Doctrine & Covenants,” he wrote that the idea of a God who lived in one’s heart was an old sectarian notion and was false.

It seems as if Joseph, perhaps on an intuitive level, realized that if one referred to God as the basis for one’s understanding of existence, nature, the world and one’s own self—then one had to first understand exactly what one meant when using the word “God.” One’s definition of God could affect one’s view of everything else. It would also have a great influence on one’s understanding of one’s own nature, on what is ethical and unethical, and on the expectations that one has of one’s self.

For instance, if one believed that God was a powerful, supernatural being or force that created existence out of nothing, then one would view existence and the natural world quite differently from someone who envisioned God in a different ways.

If one was a Pantheist, believing that God existed in nature, then one might have a very different view of human technology (which often alters the natural environment of a particular place) from one who believes that humans are created in the image of God, with a Divine charge to “subdue the earth.”

If one was a monotheist, believing in one all-powerful Deity, one might have a very different view of a single centralized governmental power than a polytheist might have, who views existence as being divided into different spheres ruled by different gods. History itself seems to prove that this is true. Over the past two thousand years, monotheism has given the world church/states in which a single king or political entity ruled by divine right. On the other hand, ancient Greek polytheism—with it’s pantheon of gods ruling the various aspects of nature—gave the world democracy. Indeed, modern democracies and representative republics came into being when the polytheistic “pagan” philosophy and aesthetics of ancient Greece were rediscovered by theologians, philosophers and artists of the late Middle Ages.

It seems perfectly rational then to conclude with Joseph Smith, that “if men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” For this purpose, Joseph Smith delivered his famous King Follett Discourse.

The problem with “understanding God,” is that according to most religions, this was a human impossibility. God was nearly universally conceived as “the Creator of all things,” as “the First Cause.” God was viewed solely in terms of power, might, grandeur and mystery. With regard to humanity and nature, God was completely “other.” The human mind, being the creation of God, was, by its very nature, no more capable of comprehending the character and nature of God than a piece of pottery would be capable of comprehending the nature of the potter who made it. The very notion that a mere mortal could “comprehend” the Divine was itself decried as blasphemous.

And yet, Mormonism itself (even in its earliest years, when it was still an evangelical movement that mingled Christian doctrine with folk-magic and spiritualism) was born from the desire of individuals to somehow comprehend the nature of God, and to reconcile many of the values of the Christian past and the Enlightenment with the more rational, secular world of early 19th century America.

The desire to “know” rather than merely “believe” was the impetus for the growth and progress of early Mormonism. In the 1830’s that desire to “know” took on a decidedly fundamentalist bent: revelations opening with the words “Thus saith the Lord” were plentiful and were given on the most mundane subjects, from keeping church records to selling property.

But over its first decade, Mormonism changed radically. The desire to “know” became linked with ancient and archaic schools of belief, such as Jewish mysticism. Finally during the Nauvoo period, Joseph Smith, Parley and Orson Pratt and other Mormon leader began drifting toward philosophy, modern Biblical scholarship, rational thought and science for their “knowledge.”

Since Joseph Smith was murdered within weeks of delivering the King Follett Discourse, that sermon could be viewed as the crowning achievement of his quest to “know” and to “comprehend the character of God.”

The sermon became controversial (and remains controversial to this day) for many reasons; chief among them the very notion that human beings could actually “comprehend the character of God.” For Christians, Jews and Muslims, this is utter blasphemy. For many modern Mormons (perhaps for the majority) it is—if not blasphemous—at least unsettling to their religious sensibilities, which tend to be like those of their Evangelical and fundamentalist neighbors.

Yet one has only to turn to Mormon scriptures—for instance, to “The Doctrine & Covenants” 93:28, which promises that people could eventually “know all things.” Even more explicit in other sections of this same book was the promise that the day would come when people would comprehend even God.

As the recent gallop survey shows, regardless of whether people think that they actually comprehend God completely, most do have very definite ideas and beliefs concerning the nature of God, and these ideas and beliefs influence they way they see the world and the way in which they see themselves.

It is this last item that is of most importance. If human beings do not understand themselves, if they are ignorant of or clueless regarding their nature and their relationship to the world in which they live, then their lives may very well become jeopardized. How accessible is human happiness, if humans either remain ignorant of their nature or base their understanding of themselves on ideas derived from irrelevant traditions or superstitions?

Even in “The Book of Mormon,” Joseph Smith railed against those who lived in blind obedience to “the foolish traditions of their fathers.” In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph examined that central concepts of traditional monotheism—the doctrines on the nature of God—and lumped them in with these same “foolish traditions.” As he went on to demonstrate, the “foolish traditions” regarding the nature of God, were blinding the human race to the reality of human nature and undermining human progress.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

How have your ideas on the nature of God changed in your life time?

What events and experiences contributed to these changes?

How did these changes in your ideas concerning the nature of God effect your later decisions and actions?
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Share your thoughts, opinions and insights with our readers, by emailing them to:reformmormons@aol.com
All views of welcomed.

Since the concepts found in the King Follett Discourse serve as the foundation for much of Reform Mormonism, the next series of lesson will explore this sermon from beginning to end.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
Violence and Force in the Name of God

A decade ago, few people in the West world would have thought that the defining issue of the age would be freedom of religion. Since the Enlightenment, the nations of the West have moved in the direction of religious freedom, with less government involvement in matter of faith. Even in those European nations which still have official state churches and religions, the links between church and state have weakened. In fact, those nations with church states tend to have the least religious citizenry.

From its inception, the United States Constitution has guaranteed freedom of religion. The most famous betrayal of that principle can be found in the history of the Mormons.

On the one hand, 19th century America politicians and lawmakers saw Mormonism as Un-American because they considered it to be Un-Christian. Despite the US Constitution and statements to the contrary by American founding fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the American public still held firmly to the mistaken belief that the United States was “a Christian government.” The radically new theology of Joseph Smith--and many of those Mormon leaders who followed him--was seen as a blasphemous by orthodox Christian standards, and therefore a threat to the belief system that many Americans mistakenly assumed was the foundation of the Republic. Believing that Mormonism posed a grave threat to the nation, both the Federal government and the government of various states and territories passed laws against the civil rights of Mormons. In Missouri, Governor Boggs issued an extermination notice which legalized the murder of Mormons in that state. Decades later the state of Idaho and the Federal Government passed laws which denied Mormons the right to vote, serve on a jury or hold political office. Mormonism is unique among all religions, in that it is the only faith to be named as a threat to the nation in the inauguration speech of a United States president.

On the other hand, Brigham Young and the first generation of leaders who established the Mormon community in Utah, while giving much lip service to freedom of religion, established a theocratic shadow government to rule the territory. In addition to this, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball and other Utah Mormon leaders preached the infamous doctrine of Blood Atonement in the mid-1850s--which made certain religious heresies capital offenses punishable by death. (The current practice in Utah of execution by firing squad, is a relic of this era and doctrine.)

All of this led to an event which historians, until the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, considered the worst terrorist attack in American history: The Utah Mountain Meadows Massacre, which took place (ironically enough) on September 11, 1857.

At that time, the Federal Government was sending the majority of the US Army to Utah Territory to put down an imagined “Mormon Rebellion.” For their part, the Utah Mormons were caught up in the fanaticism of the Blood Atonement Doctrine and hysteria over the Government’s actions. When a large wagon train of non-Mormons traveling from Arkansas to California passed through southern Utah, a legion of Mormon men--acting under the direction of the Cedar City LDS High Council--attacked the wagon train, brutally shooting and butchering over one hundred innocent men, women and children. Only a few children under the age of eight were spared.

On the Reform Mormon liturgical calendar, September 11th is a day of remembrance on which Reform Mormons look back on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and ponder the attitudes and beliefs that led to this tragedy. Fully committed to the principle that every human being has a natural right to Free Agency, Reform Mormons decry any violence or use of force (including the force of law) in the name of religion.

Ironically enough it was on the 2001 anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre that America again experienced religiously inspired terrorism and violence. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, became the defining events of the current era.

While a “War on Terrorism” is the topic of current debate, the real issue really boils down to religious freedom. Does any government have the right to establish a religion to which all its citizens must submit? Does any government have the right to punish heresy?

These questions do not relate only to the current situation in Middle Eastern countries, or the threat these may have to Western nations: over the past two decades Americans themselves have become bitterly divided on questions of religion. Americans across the political spectrum support government actions to establish a number of various laws and programs which, when examined, are based solely on subjective principles of faith.

In the midst of this “war of words and tumult of opinion,” we might benefit from the following teachings of Joseph Smith.

Joseph himself was one of the most divisive figures in American history, and during his brief life was jailed numerous times for going against the religious mainstream. At the beginning of his famous King Follett Discourse (which serves as the basis for much of Reform Mormon thought), Joseph stood up for the individual’s right to freedom of religion and conscience, and decried all violence in the name of God.

Knowing that most Americans (as well as a growing number of Mormon leaders) considered him a false or fallen prophet, Joseph taught:

“If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood? And who would not suffer?

“But meddle not with any man for his religion: and all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested.

No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong.

Every man had a natural right, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God’s kingdom on earth, and was to kill then because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse, April 1844)


DISCUSSION QUESTION

1. Joseph Smith taught: “No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong.”

Is this principle accepted by most nations on earth today? Can you think of examples?

Is this principle consistent with the fact that many nations and governments have “state churches” or “official religions?” Why is it--or why isn’t it--consistent?

Can this principle be reconciled with the common assumption that America is “a Christian nation?” Why, or why not?

2. Joseph Smith taught: “Every man had a natural right, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet.”

What are your feelings and thoughts regarding this principle?



3. All law is the use of physical force (or the threat of physical force) to a particular end. If individuals have a natural right to freedom of conscience and belief, are laws establishing religions ethical? Why, or why not?

Share your answers, ideas and opinions, by sending them to”
reform Mormons@aol.com

COVERTING TO REFORM MORMONISM: Four Steps

Progression! According to Reform Mormon, this is the purpose of human life.

Around the world, people are living longer, healthier, happier and more productive lives because of progress in ethics, science, technology, art, philosophy and other fields of human endeavor.

But if one studies history, one soon learns that nearly all of these advances were at first criticized by traditional religions. Those brave men and women who were on the forefront of progress were often labeled “heretics,” and criticized or persecuted for daring to “play God.” And yet with the passage of time it has become evident that their “playing God” has benefited the human race.

Reform Mormonism asks you consider a radical question--one that many might call blasphemous: What if “playing God” is actually a virtue?

Joseph Smith, the first Mormon, put it this way:

“….you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one.”

At first the very idea of learning to be a God probably sounds ridiculous. This is because traditional religions think of God in completely supernatural terms, attributing qualities to Him that defy reason: they claim that God created everything that exists from nothing; that God is present everywhere at all times; that He is now, has always been and always will be all-knowing and all-powerful, controlling all events. In fact, when all is said and done, the traditional concept of God boils down to one thing: power. God has all of it; human have none, and so they at God’s mercy.

Reform Mormonism rejects the supernatural. Nature is supreme. Against this background, Joseph Smith revealed a new vision of God:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…That is the great secret….if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man [or woman] in form….for Adam [and Eve] were created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God.”

The good news of Reform Mormonism is that in a deeper and more profound sense than you’ve ever imagined, you are a child of God. Whoever you are, wherever you, whatever you have done in the past, whatever your situation may now be--you exist in the image and likeness of God.

Your conversion to Reform Mormonism begins when you consider this radically new idea:

“As we now are, God once was.”

Reform Mormonism rejects the idea that human nature is inherently fallen and sinful.

Human nature is not something that one can repent of; to do that would be to apologize for having been born.

Human nature is not something that one should try to overcome; to do that would be suicidal.

The First Step in converting to Reform Mormonism is to accept human nature as your most profound link to God.

The experiences of life here on earth--whatever those experience may be--do not separate you from God. On the contrary, God was once like you, and understands everything you could possibly experience.

“As God now is, we may become.”

All children exist in their parents’ image. They have the potential to grow and become like their parents. In doing this, they take nothing away from their parents. No ethical father or mother is offended when their children follow their example and make an effort to become happy, productive adults. Far from it! Good parents take great pride in their children’s achievements! They are flattered when their children express a desire to follow in their foot steps. This is merely nature taking its course. Reform Mormonism proclaims that this same principle pertains to you and your relationship with God.

The Second Step in conversion is to realize that because you and God share a common nature, you also share a common destiny.

Growing up means learning to be independent from your parents. It means thinking for yourself, deciding what you do and do not value, making decisions and taking action and--most importantly--taking responsibility for your actions. No one can go through life blaming their parents for how his or her life has turned out.

And yet this is exactly what so many people do when they think of their relationship with God. It’s as if they think of themselves as puppets, with God pulling their strings and controlling every event in their lives. When something bad happens, they wonder why God allowed it to happen. When something good happens, they believe they’d better thank God for it or else He might punish them.

This way of thinking about God overlooks one very important thing: Every human being is free by nature. Each of us has Free Agency (Free Will). While other religions teach that you need to surrender your will to God’s will, Reform Mormonism proclaims something entirely different: God expects you to think for yourself. God expects you to be curious and to ask questions--not live by blind faith. God expects you to act for yourself and take responsibility for yourself. The good news of Reform Mormonism is this: God, like any good parents, wants you to become strong, self-reliant, independent and--above all else--happy.

Joseph Smith, the first Mormon, taught that it was God’s will that people be “free forever….to act for themselves and not to be acted upon.”

The Third Step in converting to Reform Mormonism is to embrace your Free Agency--your divine right to think for yourself, to act for your self and to accept the consequences of your actions.

You are not a puppet. You are not a pawn in some divine chess game. You are in complete control of your choices and your actions. It is God’s will that you have complete authority over your life. Being free, you create your own character; you determine what you will become.

The Fourth Step and final step in converting to Reform Mormonism is to make a personal commitment (a covenant) to emulate God.
This final step is completely private and personal. It is between you and God alone. It does not consist of joining any organization or church; it does not consist of going through a formal ritual, ceremony or ordinance.

To emulate God is to accept God as your example, to think of God as your Heavenly Father or Mother, and to commit yourself to progressing and becoming more like God.

This personal covenant with God can be made silently, or it can be expressed in a simple pray or vow. Here one’s example of such a prayer:

“Dear God, I accept that I exist in your image and
that you are my Heavenly Father (or Heavenly Mother,
or Heavenly Parent). As your child, I will look to you as an
example. From this time on, I commit myself to progressing
and becoming more like you. Amen.”

The exact words are unimportant. All that matters is that you accept the fact that because you are a child of God, and commit yourself becoming like God.

“I have said that you are gods;
all of you are children of the Most High.”
(Psalm 82:7)

IS HUMAN NATURE GOOD OR EVIL: The Reform Mormon Doctrine of Human Nature

Is human nature inherently good or bad? It’s a question that theologians and philosophers have debated for thousands of years.

When we look at a newborn infant it’s very easy to believe that we‘re inherently good. After all, an infant is so helpless, so dependent--and little children are so trusting.

“No,” say most theologians. Human nature is fallen, sinful; man is selfish, proud, arrogant. War, intolerance, sexual depravity, man’s inhumanity to man--these things prove that human nature is basically evil.

If that’s true, then how do you explain the good things people do: acts of kindness, compassion and valor? Theologians say that any good people do is the result of God working through them; they insist that if left to our own devices, we’d gravitate towards evil.

Others philosophers take the opposite view--made famous in Anne Frank’s declaration, “I believe that people are basically good at heart.” Cruelty, hate, murder, sadism--these are the result of disease, mental illness or negative social influences.

But is that true? Watch those wide-eyed trusting little children at play. Even though society hasn’t had a chance to influence all that much, little children can be awful to cruel to one another at times. But surely they’re not all suffering from disease or mental illnesses.

Others say that it isn’t a question of being good or evil. Human nature, they say, is conflicted. We’re all caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between two opposing forces---between our spirit and our flesh, our minds and our bodies, our hearts and ours heads. The body, the flesh and the cold rational mind entice us to be selfish, sensual and cruel--while the spirit and the heart entice use to acts of selflessness, love and kindness. For thousands of years philosophers and spiritual leaders have said that we should strive to overcome our selfish physical desires, our materialism and the temporary concerns of life on earth--and instead focus on spiritual matters and on what awaits us once this life is over.

Most people seem to accept this last view. When they get caught up in the demands of every day life, they often feel guilty thinking that they’re not paying enough attention to God or spiritual matters. Many of us also feel awkward, insecure and ashamed of our sexuality because we’ve been conditioned to think of our bodies and our physical desires as being in conflict with what is spiritual and good.

So, is human nature good, evil or conflicted?

The good news of Reform Mormonism is that none of these ideas are true.

Reform Mormonism teaches, “The spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88: 15)
Any conflict between the body and mind, the spirit and the flesh, the heart and head is imaginary. Take away any one of these attributes and not only would you no longer be human, you’d no longer be alive. One philosopher put it this way: “The spirit without the body is a ghost; the body without the spirit is a corpse.”

Emotions and reason, spirituality and sexuality--none of these things can be separated from one another. All are a part of our nature; all are essential aspects of our soul--and none should be ignored, suppressed or sacrificed. We have to fully embrace them all if we’re to experience true and lasting joy.

Because the body and the spirit are the soul of man, Reform Mormonism teaches that “spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy; and when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93: 33-34)

What about that newborn infant? Is she inherently good or evil? The answer is neither one. She’s still an infant, too immature mentally or emotionally to think for herself; still too helpless and dependent on others to make choices or act on her own.

And that is the key to understanding the true nature of good and evil: both are the result of an individual’s choices and actions. If something isn’t a matter of choice, then it can’t be a sin.

And so the good news of Reform Mormonism is that human beings are “in their infant state, innocent before God.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:38)

And those little children at play--sometimes hitting, shoving and calling one another names--are they good or bad? Certainly hitting and fighting are wrong, but these are still little kids, emotionally and psychologically too immature to be held responsible for their actions. In a few years, they’ll begin to more fully understand how their actions effect others and then they can be held accountable, but for now--being kids--they, too, are “innocent before God.”

The good news of Reform Mormonism is that human beings are not by nature good, evil or even conflicted; they are by nature free.

Understanding that freedom, is the first step in understanding ourselves and the purpose of life.

REFORM MORMONISM: An historical persepctive

Reform Mormonism traces its history to what may very well be the most unique, revolutionary and unorthodox sermon in American history.

The sermon was delivered in April 1844 at Nauvoo, Illinois. Built on what had been fever-infested Mississippi swamp land, Nauvoo had become, in less than five years, the largest and most politically powerful city in the state of Illinois.

The sermon was delivered by Joseph Smith, the founder and Mayor of Nauvoo. But long before he founded the city, Joseph had gained national attention as the founder of a new and distinctly American religious movement known as Mormonism.

Fifteen years earlier, Joseph had described the purpose and goal of Mormonism in this way:

“…if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them…” (“Book of Commandments” 4:5)

The mainstream churches of the day hardly thought a reformation was needed. Even though Joseph’s earliest teachings more or less reflected the Christianity of the American frontier, Joseph Smith and Mormonism were denounced by the mainstream churches. Due to the mob-mentality found in rural frontier communities of the day, the Mormons were often the victims of mob violence. Despite this, Joseph Smith continued to attract thousands of followers from across the United States, Canada and England.

Joseph Smith was unlike other religious leaders of his day. Though Mormons thought of him as a prophet, he was no preacher of doom and gloom--and he certainly looked nothing at all like the stereotypical Moses or Elijah. He was over six feet tall, possessed a powerful, athletic build and was described as “a fine looking man.” Good natured and out-going, he loved to wrestle. (One couple converted to Mormonism and moved to Nauvoo, then left the city and the faith the day they arrived when they found Joseph in a wrestling match with some other men in town.)

Growing up in the boom towns along the Erie canal in upstate New York, young Joseph Smith indulged in frontier folk-magic and spiritualism, and was fascinated with the folk-lore surrounding the origins of the Native Americans. In his late teens, his interests turned to religion: he joined a local Methodist debating club and became adept at debating theology. His religious ideas were also influenced by his father and grandfather--both of whom rejected many orthodox Christian doctrines in favor of Deism, Universalism and Unitarianism concepts.

In his early twenties, Joseph began publishing his ideas, presenting them to the world as modern scripture, equal in authority to the Bible and other ancient writings. But Joseph was far from a scriptural literalist or fundamentalist. When, after further study and prayer, his ideas regarding a particular doctrine changed, he would simply rewrite his previous scripture to reflect that change and then republish it.

And indeed, Joseph Smith’s beliefs and ideas did change as he matured.

After establishing a church in 1830, Joseph’s came under the influence of a Christian commune in Kirtland, Ohio, whose members were attempting to “restore” the primitive Christianity of the first century.

Christianity was not the sole influence on Joseph’s changing beliefs and philosophy. In Ohio, he founded what he called “The School of the Prophets,” and hired a rabbi to teach him and other Mormon leaders Hebrew and the tenants of Judaism--including elements of the Kabalah. In his early thirties, he became fascinated with Egyptology and developed a keen interest in the religions and gods of ancient Egypt. Through his involvement in Freemasonry, Joseph was exposed to the philosophy of the Enlightenment.

With all of these contrasting influences, Joseph Smith’s beliefs began to change dramatically. By the time he was in his mid-thirties, Joseph Smith was privately teaching a new theology to some of the highest ranking leaders of the Mormon community. Mormonism was on the brink of changing from a fringe Christian movement into a completely new religion.

In April of 1844, at an annual church conference in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith unveiled a new theology to the world.

He had been asked to deliver a funeral sermon in memory of a Mormon named King Follett who had died recently. This sermon became known as “The King Follett Discourse,” and in it Joseph taught ideas that not only contradicted the beliefs of most people, but also undermined many of his own earlier notions.

Joseph began his sermon championing religious freedom and the natural rights of man--going so far as to say than every individual “has a natural, and in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet.” He denounced all violence and bloodshed in the name of religion.

Joseph then denounced the central ideas of traditional monotheism, saying they were based in ignorance and superstition, and insisting that they “lessen man in my estimation.”

Joseph Smith rejected the doctrine of Creationism--considered by many to be the foundation of all religious thought. He taught that nature was uncreated and eternal, without beginning or end; that it was impossible for anyone--even God--to create something out of nothing.

Joseph declared that the individual exists literally in the image of God; that each of person shares a common nature with God and is “co-equal with God.”

While traditional religion preached dependence on God and submission to His will, Joseph taught, “You have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a greater one.” It wasn’t mere belief or faith, or a reliance on some supernatural force that would bring such growth. “Knowledge is what saves a man,” said Joseph. “The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge.” All minds “are susceptible of enlargement.”

Decades later, Joseph Smith’s brother-in-law would sum up his new theology in this way:

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

By embracing such a positive view of human nature, Joseph Smith’s new religion was at odds with orthodox Christianity. Many in the Mormon community were appalled by his doctrines.

William Law (next to Joseph, the second highest ranking official in the church) along with other disaffected Mormon officials established a new newspaper in Nauvoo. “The Nauvoo Expositor” denounced Joseph as an “atheist,” Deist” and “false prophet,” and demanded that he step down as leader of the Church and that he be stripped of the office of mayor.

In response, Joseph as the mayor of Nauvoo declared the newspaper a public nuisance and ordered it shut down. Such measures though common in frontier communities, clearly violated the First Amendment. When word reached the Governor of Illinois, he placed Joseph and several other Mormon leaders under arrest. While Joseph await his hearing, an angry mob stormed the jail in Carthage where he was being housed. Determined to rid the world of a man they viewed as a false prophet and an enemy to true Christianity, they brutally shot and killed Joseph Smith.

With the murder of Joseph Smith, the Mormon community fell apart. Many were so put off by Joseph’s new doctrines, that they left Mormonism altogether. There were bitter disputes over who should succeed Joseph as leader of the Mormon community and which of Joseph doctrines should be accepted as legitimate. Joseph’s immediate family (his wife Emma, his children, mother and siblings) renounced his new doctrines and established a “reorganized” church in Missouri, teaching the orthodox Christian doctrines that Joseph had rejected. Other groups of Mormons migrated to places such as Michigan and Pennsylvania where they founded their own churches. The largest group of Mormons migrated west under the leadership of Brigham Young, where they changed the course of US history by colonizing the states of Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Although the largest Mormon denomination, the Utah church would see many of its members break away to establish a variety of churches, sects and cults.

There are now dozens upon dozens of different denominations within Mormonism. However, one thing unites them: in varying degrees, all reject important aspects of the King Follet Discourse’s new theology in favor of orthodox Christian beliefs.

Reform Mormons stand alone in declaring that Mormonism is, in fact, a new religion--completely separate and distinct from Christianity. Reform Mormons do not attempt to distance themselves from the King Follett Discourse or water-down its unique ideas . They know that these ideas cannot be reconciled the traditional monotheism. Taking these ideas are their foundation, Reform Mormons embrace progression, individualism, rational thought, science, technology and the arts--as well as the expansion of knowledge and human liberty. Reform Mormons fully embrace all aspects of Mormon history, and they look to the future, celebrating human achievement and the divine potential of each individual.

“The Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, ranks with Moses, Jesus and Mohammed as a creator of original religious ideas. His spiritual formulations concerning the supremacy of nature, the limitations of God, and the uncreatabillity of the human spirit masterfully addressed the religious issues of his day, These doctrines provided the foundation of a new religion that declared that men could become gods and that God himself was once but a mortal man. Smith’s new religion threw out the preeminence of God, replacing it with the ascendancy of man, just as colonial America had thrown out the preeminence of the king on favor of the ascendancy of the people.” (William Call in his book, “The Cultural Revolution.”)