Reform Mormonism Gospel Doctrine

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Sunday, October 10, 2004

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

Monday, October 04, 2004

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE:
THE FOUNDATION OF LOVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

SEXUAL REPRESSSION/ RESISTING HUMAN LOVE

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

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

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

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

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

CELIBACY & SELF-DENIAL

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

BEING DISASTISFIED WITH YOUR NATURE/
PRAYING FOR GOD CHANGE YOU

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

What is your reaction to these ideas now?

STUDY YOURSELF, KNOW YOURSELF

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

THE ETERNAL EXLATION OF THE HUMAN MIND & BODY

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

Discussion Questions:

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

REFORM MORMONISM

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

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

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

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

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

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

JUMP IN & JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

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

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS

Related to this week’s lesson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

NEXT WEEK’S LESSON:

"FOR THE BEAUTY OF THE EARTH:

The Mormon Concept of the Resurrection"

____________________________________________________________________

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

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

Sunday, September 26, 2004

“FISH GOTTA SWIM AND BIRDS GOTTA FLY”

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

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

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

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

SOUL MAN

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

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

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

WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH MATTER?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

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

How has this affected my relationships with others?

How has it affected my relationship with God?

MORMON APOSTLES WIEGHS IN ON
THE MATTER OF IMMATERIALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVING IN A MATERIAL WORLD

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

CHOSING BETWEEN DEATH & DEATH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SOUL OF MORMONISM

Joseph Smith rejected all immaterialism outright. He taught:

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

Parley P. Pratt wrote:

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

Joseph Smith elaborated on these concepts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

REFORM MORMONISM

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

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

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

THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION & READERS' COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________

JUMP IN & JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

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

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

Reformmormons@aol.com.

________________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS

Related to this week’s lesson

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Rational Theology” by John Widstoe

Monday, September 20, 2004

JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION: The Virtue of Objectifying God

Sunday, September 19, 2004

THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION: THE OBJECT OF WORSHIP

Religions the world over vary in many ways. The rituals used, the scriptures revered, the organizational structures that are perpetuated, the taboos that are enshrined--all of these may vary from denomination to denomination and from one religion to another. One can increase one’s understanding and appreciation of any faith by studying any of these things. But the quickest way to understand a religion--along with its values and ideals--is to understand what it worships, what it holds most holy and sacred--in short, its God.

Some religions worship a personal God--that is, a God that is a individual personality with a mind, will and emotions. Some religions envision God as an immaterial spiritual being. Others have envisioned a God in human form. Some religions, such as Orthodox Christianity, believe that God is a mixture of these things--as demonstrated in the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Anciently some cultures worshipped personal Gods who were in the image of animals; others were an imaginative hybrid of a particular animal and a human. Still others gods were symbolized by something in found in nature--such as the sun or moon, or a particular river or tree.

Some religions worship a non-personal God. In these cases, God may be thought of as the sum-total of everything that exists, or as a power or essence that can be found within everything that exists. Other religions may be even more vague, declaring that God is that which is eternal and unknown.

Discussion Questions:

How might one’s concept of God effect the way one views the world in which we live?

How might one’s concept of God effect one’s view of human nature?

Consider two people: one worships a personal God, the other worships God as an essence that is found in all things. How might these people differ in their views of the environment? How might they differ in the value they attach to human life, animal life, plant life?

GOD THE ALMIGHTY, GOD THE RIGHTEOUS
GOD THE CONFUSING

Regardless of the differences in how they envision Deity, most religions agree when it comes to certain attributes of God. Most teach that God is eternal, unchanging and All-powerful--that God, being responsible for existence, has ultimate power and control over everything. Most religions teach that God is good--the perfect representation of all which is praise-worthy, holy and virtuous.

Attempts to reconcile these two attributes have caused endless debates and schisms among theologians and philosophers. For instance, if God is All-powerful and All-Good, why did God create--or why does God allow--evil to exist? Most of the world’s greatest religious thinkers have spent a great deal of time trying to answer this one simple question.

Discussion Questions:

If it is wrong for one to perpetrate an evil act, or to allow an evil act to occur when one could easily prevent it, how could an All-powerful God be considered good and virtuous when evil exists?

When someone truly loves another, one usually does all in one’s power to relieve any pain or misery that person might suffer. How could an All-powerful God love humanity and yet at the same time allow human suffering?

GOD'S WAY ARE NOT MAN'S WAYS

Theologians and philosophers have admitted that the above questions have no easy answers. Most have taught that God’s ways are not our ways; that God’s love and righteousness either transcends human’s understanding, or that God’s love and righteous are completely different in nature from human love and righteous. Most conclude that God is a mystery, that the human mind is incapable of understanding God‘s nature.

In the end what is taught is that God, while being worshipped as the embodiment and source of all righteousness, is not bound by any human conception of righteousness. With regards to morality, a double standard is set up.

Discussion Questions:

If one believes that God is not bound by human concepts of righteousness (that God operates by a different set of standards), how might this effect one’s behavior--especially if one believes that one is obligated to carry out God’s will?

Most religions teach that God is the source and perfect embodiment of all that is righteous, virtuous and good. Most also teach that God is beyond human comprehension. How might these two concept effect our attempts to cultivate personal righteousness, virtue and goodness?

If God is Love, and yet God is also beyond human comprehension, what could this imply about the nature of love--or any other virtue which God embodies? Would this not mean that love and godly virtues are beyond human comprehension?

If Godliness is beyond human comprehension, how can a human develop godliness? What power does one have to cultivate godliness, if the creeds and doctrines of a religion insist that God and God’s attributes are incomprehensible?

How could a religious system abuse the doctrine that God is incomprehensible?

THE GOD OF JOSEPH SMITH'S FIRST VISION

The story of Joseph Smith’s First Vision has become the foundational myth for the Mormon concept of God. According to this story, young Joseph Smith, bothered by the denominational strife brought about by the religious revivals that rocked his village, went to a grove near his home and prayed to God for knowledge and wisdom. In answer to his prayer, Joseph claimed that…

“I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me…When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that…they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.” (Joseph Smith--History 1:16-20 )

Joseph Smith’s last retelling of his “First Vision” experience contains within it elements of his most radical doctrines--all of which have to do with the nature of God and the nature of man.
By envisioning God as a person (and as person who is distinct and separate from Christ), Joseph broke completely with not only Christianity, but with the Western Monotheist tradition of the past two thousand years.

While traditional monotheism--indeed, all theistic religions--teach that God is the All-powerful creator of all existence, Joseph Smith taught that existence and matter are eternal, without beginning or end--that there was never “creation of the universe” as traditionally believed. Humanity’s God had at one time been human himself. By acquiring knowledge of existence and by cultivating virtue and righteous, he progressed and eventually became a God. Contrary to most religions, Joseph taught that God was subject to the moral code as human beings. Human love and Divine love, human justice and Divine justice, human virtue and Divine virtue were of the same essence, had the same nature.

Whereas some religions teach that if one wishes to better understand God, one must first understand one’s self, Joseph taught that one could not understand human nature until one began to grasp the nature and character of God. God became the template against which human nature could eventually be understood. This understanding would, in turn, led to human progress and growth.

Many Christians in Joseph’s day taught that God dwelt in the human heart. This idea was especially stressed during religious revivals. The subjective emotions that one might feel during a revival (the stirrings within one’s heart) were viewed as the workings of God’s Holy Spirit. Subjective emotions became the foundation of all religious discourse.

In contrast, Joseph completely objectified God and Christ:

“When the Savior shall appear, we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves…the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false….The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also..” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:1, 3, 22)

GOD THE MOTHER: OBJECTIFYING GOD AS A WOMAN

The early Mormons did not stop at objectifying God as a man---the proverbial “man with a white beard sitting on a cloud” decried by most traditional religions. Mormon poet and prophetess, Eliza R, Snow also introduced to Mormonism the concept of God as an Eternal Mother. In her poem--which served as the basis for the Mormon Hymn “O My Father”-- Snow wrote:

“In the heavens are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason, Truth eternal
Tell me I’ve a mother there.
When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I join you
In your royal courts on high?”

When Snow showed her poem to Joseph Smith, he declared that the doctrine of a divine Heavenly Mother was true and had been given to her by revelation. So it was that Mormonism restored the concept of the Divine as feminine.

OBJECTIFYING GOD AS A TOOL FOR CULTIVATING VIRTUE

As long as God was presented as living within the human heart (traditionally thought of as the seat of human emotions), subjective emotions could be made the basis not only for understanding the Divine but also for constructing a code of morality. Thus, despite the Biblical fundamentalism of many sects, traditional notions of God could serve as the basis for moral subjectivity and relativism.

By objectifying the Divine as a fully integrated human being (a glorified resurrected human whose body and mind/spirit were inseparably, eternally connected), Mormonism laid the groundwork for objective existence and a non-contradictory understanding of human nature as the foundation of religion and morality.

Human nature was no longer a depraved, sinful condition to be overcome, but that which we have in common with the Divine. Human nature was not something to be denied but something that had to be acknowledged, embraced and perfected--for despite the assertions of traditional creeds and doctrines, human beings in their natural state possessed the power to cultivate within them godliness. As Mormon scholar, Terryl L. Givens, has noted, the Mormon objectification of God “collapsed the distance” between the human and the Divine that had been imposed by two thousand years of traditional monotheism.

Whereas traditional religions undermined confidence in human understanding by insisting that God was a mystery, never to be comprehended, Joseph Smith taught:

“…the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:49)

To begin to comprehend God, is to begin to comprehend the virtues and qualities of Godliness. Comprehending Godliness is the first step in developing within one’s self the virtues and qualities revered as Divine.

REFORM MORMONISM & THE OBJECTIFICATION OF GOD

The idea that God was once human and that humans can progress and attain Godhood is one of Mormonism’s greatest--and most controversial--contributions to religious thought.
Reform Mormonism loves this concept, despite the fact that the rest of the world considers it heretical. Other Mormon denominations don’t embrace this concept with much enthusiasm, but the idea of eternal progression, applied equally to God and man, is one of the things that makes Reform Mormonism its own tradition.

Reform Mormons realize that objectifying the Divine in human form can help individuals understand themselves and thus progress.

Reform Mormons may visualize, worship or address God in prayer as either “Heavenly Father” or “Heavenly Mother.” For instance, the Reform Mormon Sacrament prayer may be addressed to “God the Eternal Father ,” “God the Eternal Mother,” or “God, the Eternal Parents.” Some Reform Mormons may find other less traditional objectifications useful. Still others may decide to avoid objectifications altogether. What is important within Reform Mormonism is that individuals realize that they have the seeds of Godhood within themselves, that the power of Godliness is available to every human being.

Therefore despite the fact that objectifying God can help one cultivate virtue and godliness, Reform Mormons acknowledge that God is greater than any objectification that one may use. Regardless of how far humanity might progress, regardless of how much knowledge, understanding and wisdom we might gain, regardless of how much virtue and godliness we might cultivate--God will always be ahead of us, assuring us that there is still much more we have yet to understand, and still more virtue that we have yet to attain.

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

As now I am, God once was; as God now is, I may become. I have within myself the power to comprehend and cultivate Godliness. Objectifying God is a tool to aid in my progression. I am free to address God as my Heavenly Father or my Heavenly Mother. I’m free to use whatever objectification of God inspires me to cultivate within myself those qualities that I revere and hold as sacred.
____________________________________________________________________

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

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

THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION

From Nancy Halverson:

"I just read this week's lesson. At first, I was worried because you mentioned God as a spirit, a former human, a tree, a presence in the heart....where was the Goddess? And then I scrolled down to the section on our Heavenly Mother. Alright, now we're talking! The Universe is not just a Father/Son operation (although they've gotton all the good press for the last two thousand years). The Divine as feminine is real, at least to me. For I feel her presence surely as strong as I feel Heavenly Father's. I never thought I could openly admit to such "kookiness", but I cannot pretend to be someone I am not.The holiday season (Christmas) will be here before we know it, and this time of year triggers such deep emotions in me. I love Christmas and everything it stands for. But I have learned to listen to an older voice also.....a voice that whispered long before that precious baby was born in a stable...

"...they are forever bound, the male and the female. Life needs BOTH. Many religions reject this, and it seems so illogical to me. You know the old saying that "behind every great man, there is a woman"? Well, there you have it. The Great Mother can be content to remain quietly in the background, she's had her day in the past.

"Perhaps it is because I AM a woman, who has brought five little girls into this world, that I am more comfortable with the Divine as feminine, than perhaps a man would be. I can certainly understand that...I have no expectations of any of the men I know accepting the existance of the Goddess. At least Mormons are on the right track. And your lessons each week are doing more than you can imagine. You are opening minds. I wish more LDS could read the lessons...It would bring them CLOSER to the original church, NOT away from it."

From Bill:

"I read this lesson in conjuction with the Book of Michael (BoM) on which I think it draws.

"As I understand the BoM, the suggestion is made that God exists in an eternal realm beyond the veil. The eternal realm is not constrained by time and space which are seen as creations of God. God can penetrate the veil at any time or any place. That suggests of course that the future is already mapped out and that we are all playing out an already written script.We cannot understand God in his eternal realm, but if he enters time and space it must be as an objectification.

"The gospel doctine lesson suggests to me that we can objectify God any way we please. Joseph's objectification of God in the First Vision evolved over time. In his last recounting of the First Vision, God was present as the Father and the Son. In the King Follett discourse, God is "an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" If you prefer God as a heavenly mother, that is OK too. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

"...I cannot figure out why God created this realm of time and space. If we existed with God in eternity, what do we have to gain by coming here? Apparantly in eternity, we are with God and share all that he has. What has this "vale of tears" got going for it? As slick os the BoM speculation is, I believe it opts for the god of the philosophers and not the God of Mormonism. And in the process, it loses much of the strength of the Mormon position.

"The Mormon God is finite and is caught up in time and space with the rest of us. Though he has mastered our physical realm, he continues to progress "worlds without end." His omnicompetance is relative to us as the BoM suggests. A theodicy (the justification of God in the face of evil) is a straightforward exercise with a finite God.

"What do I believe? I believe my heavenly Father is an exalted man. I believe I have a heavenly Mother who is an exalted woman. I believe I have the potential to be like my heavenly Father. I believe the future is not yet written and that the choices I make are not imaginary but real and have real consequences for my future happiness."

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS
Related to this week’s lesson

“The Pearl of Great Price” Joseph Smith--History 1
http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

Doctrine & Covenants 88: 40-50
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/88/41,49,67#6

Doctrine & Covenants 130
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/130

“The King Follett Discourse.” Joseph Smith last and greatest sermon, explaining the Mormon conceptions of God and humanity’s divine potential
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

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

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

Websites dealing with “O’ My Father” by Eliza R. Snow
http://northernway.org/shekinah.html#omyfather

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=252

“God the Mother in Mormonism” by Amber Satterwhite
http://northernway.org/membersworks.html#mothergod

Photographs:

The Sacred Grove (reported site of Joseph Smith’s First Vision)
http://www.hillcumorah.com/grove.htm

Reform Mormon writings on the nature of God and the objectification of the Divine:

“God as Objectification”
http://www.reformmormonism.org/objectification.htm

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

The Reform Mormon Sacrament Prayer

Currently Reform Mormon practice is a home-based. This link presents a way in which Reform Mormons can celebrate the Sabbath, and also administer and partake of the Sacrament within their own households--either alone or with family and friends.

http://www.reformmormonism.org/observance/sabbath.htm

NEXT WEEK’S LESSON:
“INTELLIGENCE & AFFECTION/ REASON & SEXUALITY”

The first in a series of lessons exploring Mormon concepts regarding the relationship of the mind/spirit with the body.
____________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION: Forms of Godliness

Sunday, September 12, 2004

“WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?”

“What must I do to be saved?” Lucy Mack Smith was not alone in obsessing over this question. It occupied the minds of most who, in September of 1824, flocked to the revivals that broke out around Palmyra, New York. It was this question, and Joseph Smith’s approach to it, that led to the birth of Mormonism.

But before one can ask this question, one must first believe that mankind is in some sort of danger, that there is some fate from which they need to be saved. One must also believe that there is a God who can save mankind from this fate. Finally one must believe that God requires that mankind do something before He will save them; one must believe in a God who demands obedience to His commands.

Discussion Questions:

When you hear people talk about “being saved,” what is your gut reaction?

Does the question “What must I do to be saved” evoke positive or negative emotions?

How great of a concern has the question of salvation been in your life?

If salvation has been a concern for you, from what did you believe you needed to saved? For what were you being saved?

APPEASING THE GODS

Before the emergence of science, humanity believed that gods and other supernatural beings created and held ultimate power over the world. It was believed these gods were temperamental, and that they were easily provoked to jealousy if humanity did not show them proper respect or pay them due homage. (See Exodus 20:5; Deut. 5:9-10; Mosiah 11:22) A natural disaster or an invasion by a foreign nation was often interpreted as a sign of divine displeasure.

In most cultures there were individuals or classes of people who it was believed could communicate with the gods in ways that the average person could not. These special oracles would then tell the people what they needed to do in order to please the gods and save themselves from divine retribution. In some cultures, elaborate religious legal codes were established which governed all aspects of life. In some cultures it was believed that sacrifices must be offered as proof that the people did not love or value anything or anyone more than they did the gods.

The central concept in all these cultures and religions was that of power: The gods had power, and the people did not. Gods issued commands, and if human did not wish to be destroyed, they were to obey. As mighty and as powerful as the gods might be, they seemed to have very fragile egos: it was as if their only reason for creating man was so that they could have someone over whom they might exercise power and dominion.

The concept of obedience to Deity is found in most religions. Even an ideal such as love for one’s neighbor has traditionally been expressed in terms of obedience to God. (See Matthew 22:37-39)

At first glance one might not see a connection between more primitive religions of ancient times and the Christian revivalist movement in America during the 1820’s, but, in fact, both were based on the same idea: that humanity would be punished is they failed to obey an all-powerful Deity.

Discussion Questions:

How important has the concept of obedience to God been in your life?

Is it possible to command that one feel an emotion such as love for another? Why or why not?

How important has the concept of an all-powerful God been in your life? Why is this?

In your personal concept of God, are there other attributes more important than power? What are some of these attributes?

A GOD WHO GIVES LIBERALLY

While in his youth, Joseph Smith--like others around him-- thought of his relationship with God in terms of power, of obedience to Divine commands, and of “being saved” from damnation and eternal punishment. He claimed that in his mid-teens he had seen a vision in which the Lord appeared to him and assured him that his sins had been forgiven. However, as he matured into adulthood, Joseph looked back on this “First Vision” experience and began to reinterpret it to reflect his evolving ideas about the nature of mankind’s relationship with God.

In his last retelling of this experience, Joseph told of being confused by the religious revivals that took place in Palmyra in the 1820’s, of being unsure of which church he should join. He wrote:

“While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: ‘If any of you lack wisdom•, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.’ Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.” (Joseph Smith--History 1:10-13)

What is interesting in this account is that Joseph does not pray for forgiveness of sins or for an assurance of salvation. Instead, he prays for knowledge. Also what prompts him to pray is not God’s power but the assurance that God would give to him liberally.

Discussion Questions:

How important to you is the concept of a God who “giveth liberally and upbraided not?”

How does this type of God effect you as opposed to a God whose chief attribute is power?

FORMS OF GODLINESS:
COMMANDMENTS AS DOCTINES

Joseph went on to tell of how he went to the woods near his father’s farm to pray. In answer to his prayer, he had a vision in which he saw two personages: God the Father and Jesus Christ. Joseph explained:

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professor were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith--History 1:18-19)

The churches taught that people were inherently sinful and deserved eternal punishment in Hell. People could be saved, however, if they obeyed God’s command to repent of their sins, to confess their utter dependence on God’s grace and to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Only by obeying this command could one be saved from Hell--for all human beings, because of their Fallen and sinful nature, were incapable of godliness.

According to orthodox Christianity, this was “what one must do to be saved.” However, according to the First Vision story, God completely rejects such ideas--labeling them “an abomination.”

During the last years of his life, Joseph Smith taught that humans--being in the image and likeness of God--were not inherently sinful but ,in fact, were born innocent and with Free Agency (Freewill). By increasing in knowledge, wisdom and virtue, human beings could progress and eventually become like God. A later Mormon leader, Lorenzo Snow, summed up the idea in this way:

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

Human progression does not depend on obedience to God, but on obedience to eternal principles of truth--principles to which even God Himself is obedient.

Discussion Questions:

What are shortcomings or virtues of a religion that “teaches as doctrines the commandments of men?”

What are the shortcomings or virtues of a religion that focuses primarily on obedience to God--on “obeying the commandments?” How could a religion that focuses primarily on obedience be abused?

How is obedience to God (or any other authority figure) different from obedience to principle? Which of these is most likely to lead to a true building up of one’s character? Which of these would most likely empower an individual? Which of these would most likely place limits on one’s freedom?

Is something true because God says it, or does God say it because it is true? What is the difference between these two concepts? How do these two concepts relate to the concepts of obedience to God as opposed to obedience to principle?

REFORM MORMON & OBEDIENCE TO GOD

Using Joseph Smith’s doctrines of Eternal Progression and humanity’s Divine potential as their starting point, Reform Mormons do not view God as someone who requires obedience.
God is not envisioned as an all-powerful ruler whom one must obey, and so within Reform Mormonism there are no rules or commandments to which all must adhere. Reform Mormonism does not “teach as doctrine the commandments of men.”

Reform Mormons believe in a rational God who expects His/Her children to progress. Instead of viewing God in terms of power, God is viewed a loving father or mother. Like any wise parent, God allows each of us to think and act for ourselves--and while this requires that each of us take responsibility for our own actions, always God is there for each of us when needed. For Reform Mormons, God is truly a God of love.

Discussion Questions:

Is the concept that God does not require obedience comforting or disquieting? Why?

How could this concept revitalize my relationship with God?

How might this concept promote my progression?

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

God is not someone who requires obedience, but someone who, like a loving father or mother, expects me to grow and progress. Whenever I lack wisdom or stand in need of comfort or strength, I can retreat to my own sacred grove and ask of God, who will give to me liberally and not upbraid.
____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION & READERS' COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

From Bill: I am new to discussion groups and to Reform Mormonism. From what I have read though, I think I am a Reform Mormon. I do like the idea of a web-based gospel doctrine class, and I love the approach of asking thought-provoking questions. Let me respond to some of the questions raised, but remember that I am new to this, so be gentle in response.

What would a Reform Mormon Plan of Salvation look like? In the Book of Mormon, salvation = eternal life = exaltation (not a Book of Mormon word). Eternal life is the kind of life that God has and is presumably what we all hope for. Salvation usually means being saved from sin and death and hell. But what would sin be in a RefMo context.

The laws that God gives us are not arbitrary commandments to see if we can be obedient, but reflect the eternal principles we must follow if we wish to be as he is. To sin would be to knowingly violate one of those principles. That would lead to what the Book of Mormon calls "spiritual death," i.e., seperation from God. God doesn't turn his back on us; we turn our back on God. To repent would be to return to the path of eternal progression. To be humble is to recognize our need for God to guide us down this path.Where does the atonement of Jesus fit in this? The atonement is a demonstration of God's love for us. He reaches out to us even as we ignore his guidance to try to draw us to him. As we respond to that love, we have faith to repent and again pursue the path that leads to eternal life. I subscribe to the universalism espoused by RefMo, but I do not believe that God can exalt us (i.e., make us like him). We must develop a god-like character by following the true principles he reveals to us...

In the 9/12 gospel doctrine lesson the question is asked, "Is it possible to command that one feel an emotion such as love for another?" I don't accept the premise that the "love" that is commanded in the Bible is an emotion. I believe love is a decision and that it is the most important of all of the principles of eternal life. As Jesus said, "On this hangs all the Law and the Prophets."The best definition of love that I have found is in Scott Peck's book, "The Road Less Traveled." (This book, by the way, is in my personal canon of scripture.) His definition: "Love is the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth."

From Nancy Halverson: WHAT A GREAT LESSON!... I'm learning church history all over again...in a better context than before. You've done all the work, and compiled the material in a way that is clear and insightful.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

From R. Frederick Lauer: I agree with Bill's comment above that God can not exalt us--that is, God can't make us like Him. This is why the belief that one must obey the personal will and commands of God may not, in the end, facilitate true progress.

We must develope godliness within ourselves of our own free will and choice; we must develope our own minds; we must cultivate godliness within ourselves. None of these objectives are accomplished through unthinking obedience to the dictates of another--be it God or a fellow human being. This type of progress and growth takes place through the process of living our lives, dealing with the issues that come our way, pursuing our individual values, asking questions and seeking answers; also through the relationships that we devleope with others.

If exaltation came from mere robotic obedience to the dictates of another being, then the plan presented by Satan in the Council of the Gods would have worked beautifully. But one's Free Agency--one's Will to Power--is essential in the building of one's character. One must have a personal desire for viture, one must reach the point where one values a particular virtue--depsite what others may do or say--before one can do what is needed to cultivate that virtue and incorporate it into one's character.

_________________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS
Related to this week’s lesson

NEXT WEEK’S LESSON:
“JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION--PART III:
The Virtue of Objectifying God”
____________________________________________________________________

Monday, September 06, 2004

JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION: Reform Mormons and the purpose of the church

Sunday, September 5, 2004

“MISSIONARY WORK” AT A FUNERAL

It was a chilly late November day in 1823 and the Western Presbyterian Church in the village of Palmyra, New York was filled with a “vast concourse of people” from the “surrounding country.” All had come to pay their final respects to a poor but hardworking young man who, just days earlier at the ripe age of twenty-five, had suffered an excruciatingly painful death from infectious gangrene--the result of treatment prescribed by a young, inexperienced country doctor.

Before delivering the eulogy, Rev. Benjamin Stockton must have been impressed by the number of people seated in his church--and by the number of “new faces” in the crowd.

The majority of Americans in the early 1800‘s, though “Bible-believers” and self-described Christians, were not affiliated with any particular denomination. They were "unchurched." In fact, part of the American character at the time was a healthy distrust of organized religion. With church attendance low, with no official state church and without the requirement that one be a Christian in order to hold public office, the clergy of various denominations felt the need to “revive” the churches. Camp meetings (also called “Revivals”) became common in rural areas and on the frontier. Their purpose? To convince the stubbornly individualistic frontiersmen and farm folk that their true fate lay in the hands of God; that despite their hard work, their financial situation (be it good or bad) or their fierce sense of personal independence, they were, in fact, living at the mercy of an all-powerful God who could punish them at any time for their sins, their pride and arrogance. At any moment one might die, and no good works or worldly accomplishments could save one form everlasting Hell. Only by feeling convicted for one’s sins, only by professing faith in Christ and throwing one’s self on God’s mercy, could one “be saved” from the eternal damnation that all humans deserved. Once “saved,” one’s faith was demonstrated by uniting with a body of believers (a church) and with them, serving the Lord.

With so many visitors in his church that November day, Rev. Stockton probably decided that the funeral was a golden opportunity to reach some of the lost souls in his community. Perhaps he might even convert the family of the deceased young man.

The young man’s mother had sometimes attended Sunday services at the Presbyterian church. In fact, the woman seemed obsessed with not only her own salvation, but the salvation of her entire family. The deceased’s father, on the other hand, had never stepped foot into the church before that day. Many in the community considered him a common drunk who seemed unwillingly or unable to hold down a job. Perhaps now, grief-stricken over the death of his oldest son, the old man might give some thought to his salvation. If not, then perhaps his wife--so desperate in her own effort to please the Lord--could convince him and the rest of her children to repent and be saved.

So it was that Rev. Benjamin Stockton used the funeral sermon of twenty-five year-old Alvin Smith as a chance to do what could be called “missionary work.” The deceased’s younger brother, William, recalled that in the eulogy, Rev. Stockton “intimated very strongly that [Alvin] had gone to hell, for [he] was not a church member.”

Discussion Questions:

Why is it inappropriate--or appropriate--to use the occasion of a death or tragedy to try to covert others to one’s beliefs?

What are your thoughts and feelings on the concept of “missionary work” as it relates to encouraging others to join a particular church?

CONQUER, THEN DIVIDE:
SAVING THE “UNCHURCHED”

As far as the Smith family was concerned, Rev. Stockton’s missionary efforts had mixed results. Joseph Smith (eighteen at the time) later wrote that:

“My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.” ( “Pearl of Great Price,” Joseph Smith --History 1:7)

However, Joseph Smith, Sr. and the other children in the family were bitter over the fact that a minister would use the occasion of Alvin’s death to try to manipulate them into accepting his church’s creeds. Joseph Smith Sr. was a firm believer in Universalism (the belief that Hell was a mere myth and that all would be “saved” in the end) and so he was particularly disgusted by the implication that his son had gone to Hell over something as trivial as not professing a certain belief or joining a certain church. Joseph Sr. was firmly convinced (as were a great many Americans at that time) that all churches were corrupt, that all had “fallen away” from true Christianity.

In matters of religion, his wife, Lucy, was the exact opposite. For years she had battled depression, and her emotions were easily provoked when contemplating eternity and life after death. Her anxiety over her salvation had, in the past, contributed to her experiencing what would now days be described as “nervous breakdowns.” Lucy’s joining the Presbyterian church--after Rev. Stockton had insulted the memory of her oldest son--drove an even bigger wedge between her and her husband--and it effected the rest of the family profoundly. William Smith remembered that his mother “continued her importunities and exertions to interest us in the salvation of our immortal souls” and “prevailed on us to attend meetings…”

The divisions in the family were intensified later when, in September of 1824, the entire region around Palmyra was caught up in a frenzy of religious revivals. Joseph Smith (Jr.) wrote that these revivals…

“commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.” (“Pearl of Great Price,” Joseph Smith History 1:5)

At these revivals, the entire point of the preaching, the singing and the bearing of testimonies was to evoke feeling of either guilt and shame over sins committed, or a fear of Hell and damnation. In the extremely emotional environment of a revival meeting, people might cry out, shake, weep, roll on the ground or pass out. All of this was taken as evidence that “the Spirit” was present, that the Holy Ghost was “at work” among the people. Those who surrendered to the experience usually went away with a profound sense peace and happiness over having finally “gotten right with the Lord.”

But when the emotionalism and sentimentality wore off, new problems often arose. Joseph Smith later wrote:

“For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.” (“Pearl of Great Price,” Joseph Smith--History 1:6)

Discussion Questions:

What are the advantages or disadvantages of basing one’s religious and moral principles on an emotional experience?

How might individuals or religious institutions manipulate the way individuals respond to such experiences? How can such manipulation be avoided?

What could be some of the pitfalls of making life altering decisions based only on “being led by the spirit?”

How could these pitfalls be avoided?

STANDING ALONE/ ASKING QUETSIONS

Joseph Smith wrote:

“During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them.”

Joseph would later recall that during this period, “he wanted to get religion too [and] wanted to feel and shout like the rest but [he] could feel nothing.”

The result of the revivals for Joseph was not a “conversion” experience, but an awakening of his mind. Witnessing the emotionalism of the revival meetings, noting how the clergy manipulated the feelings of those involved in order to build up their churches, and--perhaps most painfully--experiencing how religion was dividing his family in two, Joseph (like his father before him) began to question the legitimacy of all churches:

“ …so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” (“Pearl of Great Price,” Joseph Smith--History 1:8-10)

Earlier, when he was been sixteen years old, Joseph had had a personal conversion experience during which, he later claimed, the Lord appeared to him and forgave him of his sins. As a result, young Joseph was confident that he was in no danger of “Hell fire and damnation,” and there is little evidence that Joseph ever feared for his salvation. Perhaps this was why, despite his desire to “feel and shout like the rest,” Joseph truly “felt nothing” when he listened to ministers warning of the eternal misery awaiting the unrepentant.

Secure in his conviction that no Hell awaited him at death, what Joseph did thirst for was knowledge and understanding. Since the churches offered nothing but emotionalism, he resisted his mother’s attempts to convert him to Presbyterianism. She later wrote that when she would ask him to accompany her to church, he would reply, “I will take my Bible and go out into the woods and learn more in two hours than you could if you were to go to meeting two years.”

In addition to gaining new knowledge, Joseph longed for a community of like-minded individuals who would genuinely love and support one another. When he realized that existing churches seldom offered this to converts, he began to reinterpret his earlier spiritual experience--his “First Vision” as it later became known--as a Divine calling first to reform existing churches and later to restore the truth to the earth.

Through his reinterpretation this experience, young Joseph was finally able to say to his mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (See “Pearl of Great Price,” Joseph Smith--History 1:20)

Lucy would later remember that during this period her son said to her, “I do not wish to prevent you from going to meeting and joining any church you like or any of the family who desire the like, only do not ask me to do so for I do not wish to go….It will do you no hurt to join them [the Presbyterians], but you will not stay with them long for you are mistaken in them; you do not know the wickedness of their hearts.”

Discussion Questions:

How might Rev. Stockton’s attempts to use Alvin Smith’s funeral sermon as a missionary tool have led Joseph Smith to conclude that the Presbyterians were wicked in their hearts?

How could believing that others are damned and that one has an responsibility to help “save them” through converting them to one’s own religion be construed as wicked?

Historically what have been the results of efforts to “save” others?

How might being overly zealous in proselytizing others to a particular church or creed actually lead to prejudice towards that particular church or creed?

How might such negative results be avoided?

How is sharing one’s faith different from “doing missionary work?” Is one preferable to the other? Why or why not?

THE REFORM MORMON CONCEPT OF CHURCH

Traditionally one’s sincerity with regard to religion and God has been tied to one’s willingness to join a church, accept its creeds and follow the dictates or council of its leaders. To sacrifice for a church and to serve its interests is, for many people, a test of one’s religious devotion.
Most denominations within worldwide Mormonism go even farther--claiming that their particular denomination is the “only true and living Church,” and that it is impossible to please God without submitting to its ordinances and leadership.

Reform Mormonism rejects such notions, and maintains that every individual is a Free Agent, answerable only to God. The individual doesn’t exist for the sake of the church; the church exists as a support for individuals in their eternal personal progression. While authority in many churches comes from “the top down,” Reform Mormonism maintains that, because individuals have Free Agency and are ultimately responsible and accountable for their own conduct, authority actually issues from “the bottom up.”

In the end, one must be able to stand by one’s own convictions and live by one’s own personal revelation. A church can be a valuable tool and support in one’s life and personal progress. The relationships that one develops with those in a church can bring love, comfort and joy to the lives of all involved. But no religious organization, no ordinance or rite, no particular clergy or creed is required by God.

We progress and become like God by gaining knowledge and by emulating Deity in our character. No single creed encompasses all knowledge. No church or organization has a monopoly on truth. Reform Mormonism fully and unequivocally embraces the following teaching of Joseph Smith:

“Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc. any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all good true principles in the world and treasure them up, or well shall not come out true ‘Mormons.’” ("History of the Church," Volume 5, pg. 517)

To fulfill one’s Divine potential, one must venture beyond beyond the walls and confines of any single church.

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

My eternal progression and destiny are in my hands and mine alone. My relationship with God is personal; it is neither controlled nor mediated by any church, organization or religious leader.

____________________________________________________________________

Jump in and join the dicussion!

All view points & opinions are welcomed!

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

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

From Mark Gollaher: I think that times of tragedy can afect us in several ways, not the least of which is making us open for a pardigm shift. If someone is seeking, I don't think it's inappropriate to to share how the world makes sense to you with them. To prey upon another's vulnerability and fears is another matter entirely. Having lost my Father, I have learned that more often the person needs most to express thier greif and frustration rather than hear trite religious explainations meant to give solace.
As far as using tragedy as a spring board for conversion: one has to ask, how genuinely loving is it when the love you feel does not motivate you to listen and try to understand another but to get them to see God the way you do regaurdless of how strongly you believe you are right and conversion would benefit that person...

I have always thought that if Christians (Mormons included) would just truly live the precepts of the gospel, especially the admonition of Jesus to "Love your neighbor as yourself", no active prosyliting would be necessary. If the focus were on tangable service and love to everyone--not just those in your church--and if that love inpired a desire to understand rather be understood, I believe the pure in heart would be seeking to learn more and there would be no "encouraging" necessary....

...our emotions are often the medium the spirit uses to speak to us. They can bring thoughts and understanding to our mind that our intellect and powers of reason alone are not yet capable. On the other hand, our own emotions or feelings of fear, anger, injustice, our need to controll others to feel secure or even being overly facinated with and longing for a revelatory experience--can all interfere with and mimic feelings of true inspiration....

Whenever a person is in a hightened emotional or aggitated state they are vulnerable to mistaking emotionalism for promting of the spirit. Creating a feeling of religious fervor is very akin to getting all excited at a sporitng event. No matter how caught up you are in hoping your team will win, it will never mean that your team is the "only true team" or that God, too, is hoping they'll win. Not only that, but now you are in a state of predudiced perception, incapable of objectively judging whether that foul the Reff just called was truly justified or not. You're own emotions in this case are screaming so loudly the still small voice could never be heard.
I believe a person must let go of all predudice, hope for a specific outcome, and especially fear, in order to trully be capable of "feeling" the promptings of the spirit...

I have a simple test I use for determing whether a feeling is inspiration or merely my own emotionalism: Does this experience fill me with love? Does it make me more willing to open my heart and understand my fellowman? Does it inspire me to become a more Christlike person? Or, on the other hand, does it increase feelings of fear and mistrust, lead me to judge or cause me to withdraw from my practical responsibilities in life?
The spirit edifies and makes the heart more tolerant and loving--even when the message from the spirit is a warning. Anything that stirs up fear or anger or justifies resentment, judgmentalness or lack of love and understanding is not from God...

When the focus and motivating desire behind "loving" or helping "someone" is to get them to comform to your way of thinking, it gets in the way of truly understanding and accepting the other person. This is not the pure, unconditional love of Christ; it engenders resentment and rejection if the other person does not convert, thereby validating your own religious conviction as the only true path acceptable to God.

_______________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS
related to this week’s lesson

“The Pearl of Great Price” Joseph Smith--History 1
http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

“Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet” by Dan Vogel
(The new definitive biography of young Joseph Smith. The first seven chapters are devoted to the roles of church and religion in the Smith family.)
http://www.signaturebooks.com/JosephSmithMaking.htm

Photographs:

The Smith Family Log Cabin near Palmyra, New York
http://www.hillcumorah.com/Smith%20Log.htm

The Smith Family Farm House near Palmyra, New York
http://www.hillcumorah.com/smithfr.htm

The Sacred Grove (traditionally believed to be the site of Joseph Smith’s First Vision)
http://www.hillcumorah.com/grove.htm

The Western Presbyterian Church in Palmyra, New York (second church from the left)
http://www.palmyrany.com/images/CContant/MVC-138S.JPG

Alvin Smith’s tombstone in Palmyra, New York
http://solo21.abac.com/frodsham/images/Palmyra/medium/ROLL1009.JPG

Reform Mormon writings on:

The purpose and role of a church
http://www.reformmormonism.org/comparison.htm
http://www.reformmormonism.org/convert/practicalapplication-intro.htm
http://www.reformmormonism.org/convert/approachingRM-LDSperspective.htm

The church and homosexuals
http://www.reformmormonism.org/message-to-homosexuals.htm

The church and women
http://www.reformmormonism.org/message-to-women.htm

The church and intellectuals
http://www.reformmormonism.org/message-to-intellectuals.htm

The church and racism
http://www.reformmormonism.org/racism-apology.htm

The following books give some background information on the roles of church and religion in Colonial and early 19th century American society:

“The Faiths of the Fathers: What America’s Founders Really Believed,” by Alf J. Mapp
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=i98E92h9va&isbn=0742531147&itm=1

“Without God, Without Creed” by James Turner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=i98E92h9va&isbn=0801834074&TXT=Y&itm=1

“The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness,“ by Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurence Moore
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=i98E92h9va&isbn=039331524X&itm=1

“The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844,” by John L. Brooke
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=i98E92h9va&isbn=0521565642&TXT=Y&itm=1______________________________________________________________________

NEXT WEEK’S LESSON:
“JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION--PART II”
____________________________________________________________________

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Monday, October 04, 2004

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

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

Monday, September 20, 2004

JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION: The Virtue of Objectifying God

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION: Forms of Godliness

Monday, September 06, 2004

JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION: Reform Mormons and the purpose of the church

Blog Archive

About Me