REFORM MORMONISM & MARRIAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this?

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

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

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

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

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

But this is not the case with human beings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning eternity, Mormon scripture states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

CLASS DISCUSSION: "Truth, Sentimentality & Comfort Zones"

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


ON LESSONS FROM OUR ARCHIVE.

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

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

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

______________________________________________

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


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

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

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

Join the discussion!

Truth, Sentimentality and Comfort Zones

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY JOSEPH: Mormonism Outside the Box

Reform Mormonism is Mormonism “outside the box.”

What is “the box?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One friend—Vahn—wrote the following to me:

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

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

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

I wrote:

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

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

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

“I humbly disagree.

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

“CHARISMA is part of what makes one a prophet.

“Joseph Smith was a prophet BECAUSE he had charisma.

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

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

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

(From www.dictionary.com)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TO MEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR!

THE FOURTH COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

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

reformmormons@aol.com or reformmormons@yahoo.com

THE PRINCIPLE OF RESTORATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ORIGINAL MORMON DOCTRINE OF THE RESTORATION

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FOURTH COVENANT

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

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

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

THE THIRD COVENANT OF THE REFORM MORMON ENDOWMENT

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

reformmormons@aol.com or reformmormons@yahoo.com

REVELATION: THE THIRD PRINCIPLE OF REFORM MORMONISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ROLE OF STUDY IN THE FIRST MORMON REVELATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

STUDY AS A PREPARATION FOR FAITH AND REVELATION

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE REVELATION OF GOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE THIRD COVENANT

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