The Elements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eternal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

BEGINNINGS & ENDS: A NEVER-ENDING LINE

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

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

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

“I TAKE A RING FROM MY FINGER”

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

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



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

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

ONE GOD, WITHOUT BEGINNING OR END

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Lost Symbol" and Mormonism

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

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

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

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

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

THE APOTHEOSIS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON

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


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

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



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

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


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

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



A GOSPEL OF APOTHEOSIS

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


For more information visit: www.reformmormonism.org

GOD IN UNLIKELY PLACES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanksgiving 2009

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



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



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



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



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

SEX Part 4: JOSEPH SMITH'S CENSORED DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Joseph taught:

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

CHILD GODS

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

Joseph Smith taught:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Above) B.H. Roberts

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

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

REFORM MORMONISM, HUMAN SEXUALITY, INDIVDIUALITY AND THE HUMAN MIND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEX Part 3

ARE OUR SPIRITS THE LITERAL OFFSPRING OF GOD?

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

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

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

ORSON PRATT: AUTHOR OF THE LDS & FLDS DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUSTIFYING POLYGAMY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAPPINESS: JOSEPH SMITH’S JUSTIFICATION FOR POLYGAMY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


THE REJECTION OF ROMANTICISM

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

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

INTELLIGENCE & SPIRIT: WORD GAMES & THEOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mormon historian Dan Hale sums it up, writing:

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

THE CENSURED CLIMAX OF JOSEPH SMITH’S GREATEST SERMON

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

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

Why have they ignored it?

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

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

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