WHO'S REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ALL?

(Thanks to Troy in Richmond, Virginia whose insights led to this Gospel Doctrine lesson.)

In a recent email, a former LDS Mormon shared some of his frustration with current LDS doctrine and thought. He wrote:



“One of the other problems I have with the current LDS God is the idea that He truly is responsible for nothing. All the evil that happens is because of free agency; if someone is born with a disability, it's nature. He is the creator of all, and omnipotent. None of the bad stuff is his fault, but we have to make sure we give Him credit for all the good. That bothered me."

This current line of thinking is yet more evidence of LDS Mormonism’s distancing itself from Mormonism’s most unique doctrines and returning to traditional Christian theology. The end result of this type of thinking is that humanity is in a “no win situation.” Incapable of doing good on their own (they can only do good when God “works through them”), they are nevertheless held responsible for all evil and injustice.


It is reasonable to hold humanity responsibility for most of the “bad stuff” that plagues society. Who else could we reasonably hold responsible? The devil? The boogey man under the bed?


But it is just as reasonable to give humanity credit for the “good stuff” in the world--ranging from parents who care for their children, people who perform acts of kindness for others, doctors who heal the sick, scientists and inventors who develop technology that enhances the quality of life, and artists who create works that challenge, inspire or simply entertain us.


The debate comes down to the issue of power. Who has it? God or the individual?


The ethics of modern society are based on the value accorded to human life and individual liberty. Wanting to believe in human Free Agency (freewill), LDS Mormons, Christians and other monotheistic thinkers nevertheless want to cling to one central concept: that there is but one God who holds all power over all things.


But to accept the fact that individuals are free to think and act for themselves is to also accept as fact that individuals have power over their own actions. If individuals are controlling their own actions, then God cannot also be controlling those same actions.


Defenders of traditional religious thought use circular reasoning and contradictory thinking in attempts to reconcile two ideas regarding power and responsibility that can not be reconciled.


Either humans are free or else they are mere puppets.


If individuals are not in complete control of all their thoughts, words and actions, then it would be unjust to hold them responsible for these things. If individuals are no more than the vehicles through which God, by virtue of his supposed omnipotent power, works, then it is God--not humanity--who must be held responsible for all things--including such atrocities as the Holocaust, World Wars and acts of terrorism.

If one believes that God holds all power and controls all things, then how can one believe that God is all-good since the existence of evil, violence, pain and suffering is a fact?


Many will disagree with the assessment of things presented here, but the fact remains that either individuals are truly free and, therefore, have power over and ultimate responsibility for all of their actions--both good and bad--or else individual freedom, power and responsibility are mere illusions and God has all power.


Like previous defenders of Christianity and monotheism, Joseph Smith grappled with these questions for years. In his earliest writings and teachings (found in “The Book of Mormon” and “The Lectures on Faith”) he often resorted to the same circular arguments put forth by traditional Christian apologists--attempting to defend the belief in the existence of only one God who was the sole creator of all things and who held all power.


But from the beginning Joseph rejected the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. He taught that “The Fall of Man” was actually was good thing--a progression from a lower state of childlike ignorance, in which no true appreciation of life and experience of joy was possible, to a higher state of existence that included an awareness of the opposition found in nature and the ability to identify things as “good” or “evil.” Joseph also taught a concept of individual Free Agency (Free Will) so radical that it would eventually undermine his allegiance to orthodox Christianity and monotheism altogether.


In painting a picture of Joseph Smith as a prophet, Mormons often over look the fact that he was the product of the 19th century American frontier, and that the “rugged individualism” and attitudes of frontier Americans--ever struggling to make a living from the land and yet somehow managing to remain optimistic--influenced him. (Thus Tolstoy could call Joseph Smith the “American prophet.)


This attitude was comically captured in the classic 1960’s Jimmy Stewart Civil War film, “Shenandoah.” Stewart, playing the patriarch of a farming of family in rural Virginia, feels obliged to begin each meal with a prayer of thanks. Dutifully bowing his head, he says to God, “We plowed the fields ourselves, planted the seeds ourselves, grew and harvested the crops ourselves, cooked all this food and did all the work needed to get it here on this table--but we’ll thank you for it any way.”


Americans learned very quickly that merely having faith and praying doesn’t plant fields, produce crops or accomplish the work needed in order to survive, prosper and achieve some measure of personal happiness. Individual freedom, individual autonomy and personal responsibility were seen as the keys to both survival and achieving personal happiness.


American culture was founded upon the principle that happiness was something that the individual must pursue, and that it was moral and just that the individual be left free to pursue happiness. Joseph Smith himself gave this philosophic idea a religious grounding when, in “The Book of Mormon” he put forth a reverse interpretation of the Garden of Eden story, stating that “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.” (See “The Book of Mormon,” II Nephi, chapter 2) In the last years of his life he would write that “Happiness is the object of our existence.” In his later teachings and in the Endowment ceremonies, he taught that the ultimate goal of human existence was to enjoy the type of life and happiness experienced by God Himself.


This laid the groundwork for an entirely new view of existence, an entirely new religious paradigm. Salvation from Hell and damnation was not the goal of human existence; happiness and joy were the objectives of life, and these objectives were only possible when one gained a correct knowledge of existence (See Doctrine & Covenants 93:24) and took actions accordingly.


Whereas some other religious traditions taught (and still teach) that if one looks within and comes to understand one’s self, one can eventually understand God, Joseph taught the opposite: if we don’t understand the true nature of God first, we can never understand ourselves.


Of course if one embraces the belief in one all-powerful God who created and sustains all things by his might and power, the very idea of a mere human understanding the nature of God can seem blasphemous.


In his last years, Joseph Smith freely admitted this his new doctrines would be labeled blasphemous--even by his own Apostles and followers (and, indeed, they were declared blasphemous by many--both then and now.) “ 'Blasphemy’ would not be the beginning of it,“ he said. This did not deter him in the least.


He declared that the doctrine of Creationism--the foundation of monotheism--was false. He taught instead that matter and spirit (which he described as also being composed of matter, though “refined” and “pure” matter) occurred naturally; that they were eternal, without beginning and without end. God could merely organize and fashion matter into things, the same as a human artist or carpenter might use materials found in nature to fashion their “creations.”


He taught that the human mind was also uncreated; that “God never had the power to create man because God could not create himself.” The mind of man was’ “co-equal with God.” (See “Doctrine & Covenants” 93: 29.)


Finally Joseph Smith taught what orthodox Christians, traditional monotheists, as well as a growing majority of LDS Mormons) consider the ultimate blasphemy: that the God we worship was once a human like ourselves, who lived on a earth such as ours, and who learned to become a God by virtue of his own actions, by gaining knowledge and by progressing from a lower step to a higher step.


This doctrine is so radical, so “blasphemous” by nearly every traditional religious standard, that even Joseph Smith’s most ardent apologists back away from it. For instance, Rodney Turner (LDS Mormon scholar and professor emeritus of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University) in his essay “The Imperative and Unchanging Nature of God” tries to defend Joseph Smith’s teachings while at the same time trying (unsuccessfully in my opinion) to reconcile them with traditional monotheism. For example he writes:


“Law did not create God; God created law. The Almighty did not begin his career as a cosmic Columbus who stumbled upon supposedly self-existing natural laws.”


However, this is the EXACTLY what Joseph Smith did teach: God was once human and that he learned to become God by obedience to the eternal, uncreated laws and principles that govern existence itself.


Elder Turner denies the reality of what Joseph Smith taught because he wants to preserve one of the foundations of monotheism--that God has ultimate power over all things:


“If there was “a great first cause” of all things, he is it.”

One could argue that there is no true “great first cause of all things” because existence itself, being eternal and uncreated, needs no “cause” to explain its existence. “Nature” is that which is uncreated; is that which simply is.


Having set forth an entirely new religious paradigm, Joseph Smith then taught that “you must learn how to become gods yourselves, the same as all gods before you have, mainly by going from one degree to another.”


At the end of his life, Joseph Smith taught that God’s relationship to us was truly like that of a parent to a child. God wants us to grow and become like Him, to enjoy the kind of life that He enjoys. But even He has no power to force us to do achieve these things.


Nor has He the power to deny us these things should we achieve them, for blessings are not given to us directly by God by virtue of His will and power, but come as a result of acting in accordance with principles and laws which even God is unable to revoke. Joseph Smith wrote:


“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of the world, upon which all laws are predicated; and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” ( See “Doctrine & Covenants” 130: 20-21)


Cause and effect are eternal, irrevocable principles of existnce itself. So much for giving God either the credit for the good that we do or the blame for the bad.


Reform Mormonism, by fully accepting Mormonism’s radical doctrine of Free Agency with all of its implications, embraces the complete freedom of the individual--which can not in any way be separated from full responsibility and personal accountability for one’s actions.


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How has the traditional concept of God holding omnipotent power of all things effected your view of the world? In what ways has this concept influenced your actions and the choices you have made?

2. Can you point to examples of how the concept of God holding ultimate power of all things continues to effect the world today--at both the personal and societal levels?

3. How might the Mormon concept of human Free Agency effect your own views and actions? How might the concept of personal responsibility effect your views and actions? How are these concepts different from traditional beliefs regarding God’s power and human freedom?


JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

Jump in and join the discussion! Share you answers to the above questions--as well as any and all thoughts you might have on this topic--by emailing them to us at:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

Your emails will be printed here. All views and opinions are welcomed.

Reform Mormonism Gospel Doctrine

HAPPY HOLIDAY TO ONE AND ALL!

Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine lessons will resume in January.


READERS RESPOND TO "LIVING IN A COMPLEX UNIVERSE."

Hello to all children of the THE GREAT PARENT,
which expresses itself in countless individualities!
This lesson really encourages us to progress according
to THE GREAT LAW towards the paradoxical `goal of infinity´
in the spirit of true Mormonism!
WE all emerged from THE GREAT SOURCE and remain united forever
by this common origin. At the same time, however, we partake
at the ever-ongoing pluralisation of THE GREAT PURPOSE.
May we always exert our free agency in a responsible manner,
because there is not only a possible heavenly
but also a hellish complexity!
Is the one unthinkable without the other?
Hopefully not!

Mick (Germany)

LIVING IN A COMPLEX UNIVERSE

October 9, 2005


WISHFUL THINKING & MONOTHEISM


All of us at some point---if only momentarily-- wish that existence could be more simple. Life offers us so many choices, and often events seem random and purposeless. Life would be so much easier, would require so much less of us, if only some one or something was in control of it all.


Thus, the appeal of monotheism--the belief that there is but one God or Divine Power that created all things, infuses all things and ultimately controls all things.


Of course, such a belief is difficult to maintain and justify--not only in the face of human suffering and the forces of nature (disease, natural disasters, etc.), but also in light of humanity’s increased understanding of the laws of nature. For instance some may object to the theory of evolution all they like, but our increased understanding of biology and genetics continues to support Darwin’s theory while casting serious doubts upon the theory that all existence was created a mere six thousand years ago and that Lord literally formed man from the dust of the earth like “an adobe brick” (as Brigham Young often joked).


At this point in our history, the case could be made that the central human conflict seems to be between those who are willing to accept the complexity of the universe and those who wish to find comfort in the belief this complexity is merely an illusion; that behind it all, there is one central power--one God--who is pulling all the strings.


MORMONISM, POLYTHEISM & PROGRESS


In the 1840’s, Joseph Smith--the founder of Mormonism--began teaching a new theology that completely undermined such simplistic wishful thinking.


Joseph rejected the doctrine of creationism outright. He taught that nature was uncreated and eternal. All intelligent beings existed within nature. Each possessed Free Agency (free will) and by virtue of their self-directed actions, they could gain knowledge, and increase eternally in intelligence and power, consistent with their nature. He taught the radical and--according to most--heretical doctrine that the beings which religions presents as Gods are merely exalted humans, representing what each of us can aspire to become.


By teaching “the plurality of Gods,” and the Primacy of Existence (the idea that nature is uncreated and eternal), Joseph Smith was recognizing the fact that the universe is a mixture of distinct materials, energies and intelligences that are in a state of eternal interaction; that existence is so complex and the natural world is filled with such diversity, that it is impossible for one central power, authority or God to govern and control all things.


Over the next 160 years, the majority of the world’s Mormons would retreat from Joseph’s new theology.


Reform Mormons do not. Not only do Reform Mormons accept the fact that the universe is complex, we also accept the fact that human nature is complex, and that as humanity increases its knowledge of the universe, they will become increasingly complex. Where other religions may look upon this as bad and pine for a more simple existence, Reform Mormonism teaches that humanity’s increased complexity is a good thing. Indeed, increased complexity is the very purpose of human existence, for it lays the foundation for a deeper, more complex experience of joy.


INCREASING COMPLEXITY


No Mormon theologian wrote more eloquently about this than LDS Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe. What follows below is a chapter from his 1915 Mormon classic, “Rational Theology.”


Even though this book was originally published by the LDS Church as its first Melchezedek Priesthood study manual, over the next 90 years LDS officials renounced many of the work’s central tenants. Reading this outstanding work today, current LDS Church members might be astounded (and troubled) by the teachings of Apostle Widtsoe. His values and philosophy in many cases are the polar opposite of current LDS authorities.

Reform Mormons, however, are more likely to appreciate Apostle Widtsoe’s work--which takes as its foundation the later theology of Joseph Smith.


(Note: Modern readers of “Rational Theology” may also be impressed with the high quality of early twentieth century LDS Church educational material when compared to those of the past forty years. No LDS Priesthood study manual of the past fifty years begins to equal “Rational Theology” in the quality of its writing, or in its intellectual integrity and in its respect for the intelligence of its readers.)

THE GREAT LAW
By John A. Widtsoe
From “Rational Theology”

“The innumerable interactions of the matter, energy and intelligences of the universe, must be held together by some great law. This universal law to which all lesser laws contribute, must be of real concern to the man who seeks a true philosophy of life.”


INCREASING COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE


“It has already been said that a universe controlled by intelligence and under the reign of the law of cause and effect cannot be conceived to be in confusion. Man is absolutely certain, if his knowledge is rational, that, whether it be yesterday, today or tomorrow, the same act, under the same conditions, will produce the same result. Under a set of given conditions, a ray of sunshine passed through a glass prism will always be broken into the same spectrum, or a straight stick standing in water will always appear crooked. Whether in the physical, mental or moral world, the law of cause and effect reigns supreme.


“Quiescence [absolute peace, inactivity and stillness] in the universe can not be conceived, for then there would be no universe. Constant action or movement characterizes the universe. The multiplicity of actions upon each other, of the various forms of matter, energy and intelligence, composing the universe, must cause an equal multiplicity of effects. Moreover, increasing intelligent wills, acting upon matter and energy, must and do produce an increasing series of reactions among the forces of the universe.


“Moreover, each new set of effects becomes the cause of still other effects. Thus, in our universe, as we conceive it to be constituted, increasing complexity would seem to be the great resultant law of the operation of universal forces. This is the great law of nature, to which every living thing must conform, if it is to be in harmony with all other things. In a universe controlled by intelligence, it is only natural to find everything within the universe moving along towards one increasing purpose. As new light has come to man, the certainty of this law as a controlling one, has become more and more emphatic.”


MAN & THE GREAT LAW


“The law of increasing complexity is fundamental. Since man is constantly being acted upon and acting upon matter and energy, he must himself be brought under the subjection of the great law. That is, under normal conditions, he will be increasing in complexity. As man observes phenomena and reasons upon them and applies them, he grows in knowledge. Where he formerly has one fact to use, he now has many. This is the essence of his complexity. A carpenter with one tool does less and poorer work than does one with a full kit of modern tools. Likewise, man, as he gathers experience, becomes more powerful in using the forces of nature in the accomplishment of his purposes. With this thought in mind, the great law becomes a law of increasing power, of progressive mastery over the universe. For that reason, the law expressing the resultant of the activities of universal forces is often called the law of progression.


“The degree of man’s growth or progression will depend upon the degree his will is exercised, intelligently, upon the things about him. It is even conceivable that by the misuse of will, man may lose some of his acquired powers. In any case, the operation of the will, under normal conditions, adds power to man; and by the use of the intelligent will in a world of matter and energy, the increasingly complex man grows in strength towards perfection, in an increasingly interesting world. Those who do not conform to the law of progression are abnormal and do not exert their powers, to the requisite degree, in the right direction.
Nature is inexhaustible in the possible number of inter-relations among matter, energy and intelligence. It follows, therefore, that man will forever be able to add knowledge unto knowledge, power unto power, or progress unto progress. This law of progression is the great law of the universe, without beginning and without end, to which all other laws contribute. By adherence to this law, the willing, intelligent beings have risen to their present splendid state of manhood, and by further compliance with this law they will advance to a future Godlike state of perfection. The supreme intelligence and perfected will of the universe, God, has attained His position by an obedient recognition of the conditions of the law of progression.


“The law of progression gives hope and purpose to those who accept the Gospel [Mormonism]. The feeling of security that comes from the knowledge that the elements of the universe are eternal, is made living by the hope established by the great law that there is purpose in all the operations of the universe. Whatever man may do, whatever his life may bring, provided all his faculties are working actively among the things and forces about him, he is acquiring knowledge, thereby power, and, under the law of progression, he is being moved onward to a more advanced position than he now occupies, in which he may do mightier work. Men, discouraged by their failure to accomplish exactly what they desire, often speak of their lives as purposeless, but it is idle talk, for, in fact, no intelligent life which concerns itself vigorously with the things about it, can be said to be purposeless. Such a life adheres, automatically, to the law of progression, and is therefore moving on to the great destiny of supreme power and accompanying joys. The only purposeless life is the one that do not use its faculties. It matters little what tasks men do in life, if only they do them well and with all their strength. In an infinite universe, one cannot possibly learn all or do all, at once. A beginning must be made somewhere, and corner by corner, department by department, space by space, all will be known and conquered. In the end, all must be explored, and whether one begins in the east or the west cannot matter much. The big concern is to what extent a man offer himself, mind and body, to his work. Upon that will growth depend.


THE LAW OF DEVELOLPMENT


“The law of progression is then a law of endless development of all the powers of man in the midst of a universe becoming increasingly complex. No more hopeful principle can be incorporated into a philosophy of life.”


SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS


Please share your thoughts on this lesson, by emailing them to:

reformmormons@aol.com.


All views and opinions are welcomed, and we look forward to sharing them with all our readers by publishing them here.


For more information on Reform Mormonism, visit:

www.reformmormonism.org


You’re also invited to join the Reform Mormonism Yahoo Discussion Group, accessible through the above website.

ETERNAL INTELLIGENCE

This is the second in a series of Gospel Doctrine lessons exploring the Mormon concept of the individual as uncreated and eternal. Many thanks to Mick in Germany, whose thoughtful email laid the groundwork for these lessons.

Our last lesson traced the evolution of Joseph Smith’s theology and concluded:

Joseph evolved from a village seer whose claims were steeped in the mystical and supernatural, into a theologian/philosopher who presented argued rationally in defense of the new ideas he taught. He evolved from someone who tried to reconcile the natural world to a pre-existing idea of a supernatural Supreme Being into someone who in essence insisted that one’s beliefs and one’s ideas regarding God must be consistent with the reality of the natural world.

In this lesson, we will explore what Joseph had to say about…

THE ETERNAL NATURE OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT

IS THERE ANY PROOF….?

Let’s begin by looking at the questions that Mick asked concerning this idea:

“… is there any, at least tiny evidence for the basic Reform Mormon concept of infinite individual existence? If the stream of memories, valuations and intentions that we all agree to call our individual `self´ is nothing more than the physiological and biochemical interplay of some billions of neurons (for which there is considerable scientific evidence as far as I know it), then why should there be reason to believe in a pre-conception and post-mortem individual existence? “

The honest answer to this is a resounding, “No.” People may believe with all their hearts--they may claim to know beyond the shadow of a doubt--that the individual “lives on” past death (and, in a Mormon context, that “one lived with God before being born”) but there is no indisputable objective proof or evidence with which they could convince a non-believer.

This being the case, a good question that one might ask is this: Does the nature of what you believe to be true contradict the nature of those things you know to be true?

If the nature of what you believe (without any poof) to exist doesn’t contradict the nature of those things you know exist, then you are fine. If, however, you maintain a firm belief in something that, by its very nature, contradicts what you know to be the nature of reality--well, you’re in a quandary. To maintain your belief, you may have to turn your back on reality.

The point of this lesson will be to determine if what Joseph Smith taught regarding the nature of man’s eternal spirit/intelligence is consistent with the nature of reality as we know it.

We will also explore the concept of an “infinite individual existence” as taught by traditional religions (which is that one’s spirit is the essence of one’s personality--with memories, emotions, character traits, etc.) and try to determine if, in fact, the new theology taught by Joseph Smith supports or undermines this wide-held belief.

WHAT IS SPIRIT?

Before we can consider the eternity of the individual human spirit, we must first define what it is exactly we’re talking about when we say “spirit.”

Traditionally the spirit (that which is believed to survive death and--within Mormonism, to exist before birth) is believed to be an immaterial entity--something that is not composed of matter, is not bound by physical existence, something which by nature is the opposite of the physical.

Joseph Smith rejected this doctrine completely. Instead, Joseph Smith (as well as Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt and other early Mormon theologians) taught:

“There is no such thing as immaterial matter. 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 our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (Doctrine & Covenants 131:7-8)1

For a religion, this concept is extraordinary. Mormon theology embraces materialism. As the foundation for its unique theology, Mormonism accepts that which is foundation of scientific thought and rationalism: the primacy of physical existence. This means that it is the natural world itself--not a supernatural being or force, or some alternative existence or world--that is omnipotent.

Regarding the existence of the spirit, Joseph Smith was saying this: For something to exist, it must, in fact, exist; it must have a material existence; it must be composed of elements. You needn’t be able to see it with your naked eye; the evidence of its existence might be at what we today would call the chemical, atomic or sub-atomic level--but the thing’s nature must be consistent with what we know about the reality and nature of existence itself.

The belief in a supernatural, immaterial “spirit” was--according to the Mormon theology of the early 1840‘s--pure fantasy. In his missionary tracts and pamphlets, Mormon Apostle Parley P. Pratt compared the traditional religious concept of an immaterial spirit to a belief in fairies.


THE ELEMENTS ARE ETERNAL

Regarding the nature of matter, Joseph Smith taught: “The elements are eternal.” ( Doctrine & Covenants 93:33)
Joseph rejected the idea that God--or anyone else--created existence. Joseph Smith--on theological grounds--came out against the traditional doctrine of “creationism” :

“Now I ask all who hear me why the learned men who are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. The reason is they are unlearned. They account it blasphemy to contradict the idea; they will call you a fool....The word ‘create’ [in the Biblical book of Genesis] came from the [Hebrew] word ‘baurau‘; it does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize, the same as a man would organize materials to build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles that can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed. “ (Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse.)

Joseph’s theology was in agreement with science. Existence itself is eternal, and everything which exists has been organized from or has evolved from pre-existing, elements.

THE ETERNAL INTELLIGENCE OF MAN

Joseph Smith taught that because the elements are eternal, the spirit/intelligence (which is composed of matter) is also eternal. Like the universe itself, the intelligence/spirit of the individual is self-existent--though it is in a constant state of evolution and progression. No God or higher power created this individual mind/spirit

“Man was also in the beginning with God; intelligence, or light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (Doctrine &Covenants 93:29)

Joseph Smith taught:

"Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man….I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning…All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it." (Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse)

What do we call something that which is not made or created, but simply exists on its own?

We call such a thing “natural.”

In essence, Joseph Smith--on theological grounds--taught that the human spirit was natural; that because it had a material existence and was composed of eternal elements, the spirit/intelligence of the individual was something found within nature.


“GOD FOUND HIMSELF IN THE MIDST OF SPIRITS…”

Listen now to the creation myth told by Joseph Smith (perhaps, “Organization Myth” would be more accurate):

“…I am going to tell you the designs of God for the human race and why he interferes with the affairs of man…God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory…Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council. …The grand councilors sat in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds that were created at that time…”

I find Joseph’s wording compelling. He doesn’t say that God created our spirits, or that He called them forth or gave birth to them. He said that “God found himself in the midst of spirits.” The sentence brings to mind the image of a man hiking through nature and then happening upon some natural phenomenon.

God, finding himself surrounded by naturally occurring entities called spirits, saw that they, by their nature, had the potential to progress, grow and evolve into a highly-intelligent being like Himself. The means by which this could happen would be through their acquiring knowledge--by evolving, progressing and somehow growing so as to become thinking entities--and by acquiring power--by evolving, progressing and somehow growing so as to become independent entities, each with its own will and each free to determine its own thoughts and actions.

Thus this story lays the groundwork for the high regard with which Reform Mormonism holds Knowledge and Free Agency. Joseph taught that Knowledge and self-direction (Free Agency) would facilitate one’s progress:

“Knowledge saves a man, and in the world of spirits a man cannot be exalted except by knowledge…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation..”


THE PARADIGM OF PROGRESS

Traditionally when religions refer to an afterlife or to an existence prior to life on earth, the spirit of the individual (that which is eternal) is imagined to be a fully realized personality with thoughts, feelings and memories. Certainly such ideas have taken root within the various Mormon traditions that have accepted Joseph Smith’s theology of the so-called “Pre-existence”--meaning the existence of the spirit/intelligence before birth.

But when one examines the story that Joseph told, one doesn’t find much evidence for the belief that before our birth, we were fully formed personalities with thoughts, feelings and emotions; that, as LDS Mormons tend to believe, we were fully realized individuals who “chose to leave the presence of Our Heavenly Parents in order to come down to earth and get a body.”

This “Children’s Sunday School” interpretation of what Joseph Smith taught actually undermines the central idea that was the foundation of Joseph’s new theology: progression.

Some later Mormon traditions developed a myth of “A Council in Heaven,” in which the spirits of all humans (presented as thinking, rational beings) voted on whether or not they would accept God’s plan of life on earth.

But in Joseph’s original story, the council is a Council of Gods who meet to determine how best to organize things so that the spirits (that God found himself in the midst of) might grow and progress in knowledge, intelligence, power and glory. In Joseph’s original story the spirits that God found have no voice at all and play not part whatsoever in the Council of the Gods.

In fact, if one searches through the scriptures that Joseph produced (such as The Book of Abraham), though he taught that the spirits of human beings were present in the Council of Gods, no where does he write that they, in fact, took any action. In all of Joseph’s accounts, it is the Gods who confer, debate and take action.

Could it be that the spirits did nothing because they were, at that point in their progress, not capable of doing anything? Could it be that spirits at that time only had the potential of becoming rational, self-directed individual personalities; that perhaps the entire purpose of life on earth was to place a spirit/intelligence in situation in which it could progress and develop into what we would now recognize as an individual personality.

If life on earth is a step forward in one’s Eternal Progress, couldn’t it be that the eternal spirit at that time was just one element---just one aspect of that composite thing which we now recognize as an individual personality? Just as a two year old child s a more developed individual personality that a two day old infant, could it not be that a newborn infant--with no experiences, no frame of reference, no defined opinions, thoughts or emotions--might be a more defined personality than the “pre-existent” spirit described by Joseph Smith?

Wouldn’t this view of things be more consistent with human nature as we know it and with the Mormon paradigm of Eternal Progression--the idea that we are always progressing from a more simplistic, chaotic state to a more complex, ordered and “Exalted” state?

THE SPIRIT/INTELLIGENCE: JUST ONE PART OF THE WHOLE


In his email, Mick points out:

“…the stream of memories, valuations and intentions that we all agree to call our individual `self´ is nothing more than the physiological and biochemical interplay of some billions of neurons…”

Traditionally most Western religions have taught that the spirit is the soul of a human being, that the spirit is the most important and essential aspect of one’s makeup; that, in fact, the spirit is one’s personality. Thus, there exists the common belief that one’s personality as we experience it in this life survives death and, according to popular interpretations of Mormon theology, exists prior to birth.

But Joseph Smith rejected the doctrine that the spirit is the soul of man--though, as was common in Christian circles, at the beginning of his career, he often used the words “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably.

But as his understanding of things progressed, he taught the following:

“The spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:19)

Joseph teaching here is in total agreement with the scientific theory to which Mick refers. The biochemical and psychological interplay of billions of neurons, the chemicals which the body produces, the nervous system, brain cells--in short, every single organ and function of the body is part of one’s soul. Without the body, without its systems and chemicals, one would not have a soul. The body as well as the spirit is part of the essence of being an individual soul.

The spirit/intelligence--which Joseph taught was a material--is just one of the many things which, when combined, make up the soul of the individual.

What appears to be a radical new redefinition of the concept of “the soul” actually resonates with the original Israelite concept that is still found in the first chapters of the Hebrew Bible:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [‘breath’’ and ‘spirit’ are the same word in Hebrew] and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

Joseph taught that to exist as a soul, to think and progress, to feel the full range of human emotions, the material spirit/intelligence must be joined with that complex organism we call the human body:

“…spirit and element, inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:33-34)

Because of this theology, the concept of the Resurrection of the body was of great importance to early Mormons, and became central to Mormon cosmology. It was through a future Resurrection of the Dead (the joining of the spirit with the body, never again to be parted) that physical death would be conquered and the individual living soul would be restored:

“Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead. And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:14-16)

So it was that it became part of Mormon funeral traditions, to refer to the body being laid to rest “in the hope of a glorious resurrection.”

Joseph Smith rejected that idea that the essence of one’s individuality--one’s soul--survived death as a purely spiritual entity that went off to live eternally in a heavenly kingdom of pure spirit. As stated before, one of Joseph’s closest disciples, Parley P. Pratt ridiculed this traditional belief as being nothing more than a fairy tale.

The survival of one’s soul could only be brought about by a resurrection of the body. Exactly how this Resurrection would be brought about was open to speculation and debate.

The traditional Christian belief was that at the Second Coming of Christ, all who ever lived would be suddenly and miraculously resurrected. Though he used traditional Christian literary symbols of angels sounding trumpets in his writings, Joseph Smith may have had other ideas altogether--which is evidenced in the fact that after his murder, his inner circle of disciples, while each claiming fidelity to Joseph’s teaching, put forth contrasting theories.

For instance, Orson Pratt insisted that all that was needed to resurrect the body of anyone who had ever lived was one “particle” of their remains; that from this one particle, an exact replica of their body could be formed. Eliza R. Snow (who was married Joseph Smith) said that a resurrected body could only be produced by a woman carrying it through a full-term pregnancy. (Brigham Young, who was never known for his imagination, at one time or another threatened to excommunicate both Pratt and Snow for their teachings on the resurrection.)

Looking at Pratt’s and Snow’s speculations, one might think of current debates on cloning. We’d be foolish to think that Pratt and Snow has any notion of cloning; they were speculating, using what has been called “religious-making imagination.” But what is impressive with these early Mormon thinkers, is that their religious imaginations were kept in check by what they perceived to be the limits of physical existence. They were attempting to reconcile religious ideas with the facts of known reality. When traditional religious ideas failed to fit into what seemed natural, those ideas were either redefined, altered or thrown out altogether.

In short, these Mormons--these rustic frontier theologians--were trying create a rational theology.


THE ETERNAL PART OF MAN: REASONING LIKE A PIONEER MORMON

Which brings us back to our original question: “Is there any, at least tiny evidence for the basic Reform Mormon concept of infinite individual existence?”

If one means the pre-birth and post-death existence of a fully formed, fully aware, personality of spirit--the answer is, of course, “No.”

But as demonstrated here, the theology that Joseph Smith developed later in his life (the theology which Reform Mormonism takes as its starting point) doesn’t actually teach this traditional concept.

In fact, when explored fully, Joseph Smith’s later theology seemed to challenge the concept of infinite individual existence because the individual personality (the soul) is a combination of things--the physical body and a material spirit/intelligence. All Joseph Smith taught was that an eternal, uncreated [naturally occurring] material that he called “spirit” or “intelligence” had the potential, when joined with a physical body, of progressing and growing into an individual human personality--and then onward into what we would now consider to be a God.

Adjusting to this particular theology, the question might be phrased: “Is there any evidence for the existence of a spirit/intelligence that exists before birth and survives death?”

To answer this question, I will turn to Joseph Smith’s teachings to find out what exactly he had to say on the subject. I’ll then attempt to reason like a pioneer-era Mormon theologian, cross-referencing Joseph’s other teachings on the subject; then I’ll look to see if anything can be found in nature that bears some resemblance to what it is he describes.

I admit at the start that I’m approaching this little exercise as something of a game. I don’t for an instant believe that this simplistic approach will convince anyone in the reality of “the pre-existence” or “life after death.” However, I do intend to make a point about the Mormon Paradigm.

Joseph Smith taught:

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:29)

The aspect of man that was “in the beginning with God” was his “intelligence“--which Joseph also calls “the light of truth.”

Elsewhere Joseph taught, “…whatsoever is light is spirit.” (Doctrine & Covenants 84:45).

Joseph used the words “light” and “spirit” interchangeably, and by these he referred to something that was material--something that was composed of what he called “fine” matter. (Doctrine & Covenants 131:7-8)

Joseph calls “intelligence” a “light of truth.” How did Joseph define “truth” in his theology?

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

So what is it that Joseph is actually talking about here? What does he mean by describing “Intelligence” as “light [spirit] of truth?”

Taking into consideration the definitions that he gives to his words and phrases, one comes up with something like this: Intelligence is a fine matter containing knowledge of what is, what was and what will be as it relates to an individual human.

Is the existence of such a thing possible?

Is there in nature any “fine matter” (any physical substance, cell, molecule, etc.) that contains knowledge--a record--of the past, present and future as it relates to an individual human being?

DNA come to mind. DNA contains “the blueprint” for an individual. One’s DNA survives one’s death. One’s DNA has an existence before one’s conception in the genetic material found in one’s ancestors--and humanity’s ancestral line disappears in the fog of earth’s past, stretching back to the unknown beginning of life itself--if, in fact, life itself ever had a beginning. Perhaps, like existence itself, life is without a beginning.

Of course, DNA is currently the inspiration for science fictions--but then critics have always maintained that the most unique aspects of Mormon theological speculations bear an amusing resemblance to science fiction.

Am I saying that Joseph Smith was talking in code about DNA when he spoke of an individual’s intelligence as something that was uncreated, that existed before conception and somehow survives death?

Of course not.

What I am attempting to show is that Joseph’s theology was coming from a sense of life--a view of existence--that was extremely rational; that he was redefining traditional religious concepts like “spirit” and “soul,” endowing them with a nature that was consistent with the natural world. This definition of intelligence drawn from his teaching does correspond to a known aspect of nature.

After his death, the majority of his followers either rejected his later theology completely or tried (unsuccessfully) to reconcile it with his earlier Christian theology. The result was the many and distinct denominations and sects within worldwide Mormonism.

By accepting Joseph’s later teachings and by completely distancing itself from traditional Christian theology, Reform Mormonism teaches some concepts that can not be proven, that one can only believe or not believe. But because Reform Mormonism is built on the truth that Nature itself as supreme (the entire basis of Joseph’s later theology), Reform Mormonism does not ask anyone to believe in something that flies in the face of what is known about nature.

This is true regarding Reform Mormonism’s teaching that there is something eternal and uncreated about the individual--something that existed before this life, and will exist when this life is over.

READERS' LETTERS & DISCUSSION

From Mick in Germany:
What a beautiful surprise to read about the last two Gospel Doctrine lessons you have posted meanwhile in response to my last mail. (Yes, my small EGO felt considerably uplifted!)

The question whether or not our consciousness might survive our physical death is a tricky one. I think, we indeed do have some good reasons to hope for immortality - at least in the very near future of human progress. How´s that?
The basic question is about the true essence of our mind or consciousness. And there are only two possibilities about the basic nature of consciousness which both imply the possibility of mind surviving the physical death.

The first possibility implies that there is indeed nothing more about consciousness than the on-off activity on neuronal synapses in our brains. If so, then we should be confident that this might be simulated (or better imitated) by computational devices
in the very near future. We all might then be able to get our biological brains supported by (probably implanted) computer chips. Our consciousness then would only partially be determined by our natural brain. Our mental capacity would - more and more - rest on the connection with computational devices in- or outside our bodies. After some time, we would probably not even be able to tell the difference between our `natural´ and our `computational´ mind. All mental information could then be stored or downloaded independently from the mortal body. Then we were in fact immortal!!!
Remember: This is only the case IF (a great IF!) our basic premise (mind is nothing but the on-off activity of the interplay of neuronal synapses) is in fact true. Until now, we don´t know that for sure.

But if this is nothing but science fiction? Well, then there must necessarily be more about our consciousness than the synaptic interplay of neurons. Something that is probably independent from our mortal body and therefore not bound to dissolve into nothingness after the death of the body. Then, our faith in the possibility of immortal consciousness should be even stronger. What do you think?


Send your thoughts to: Reformmormons@aol.com

THE MORMON VIEW OF REALITY& THE MYTH OF ‘A HIGHER PURPOSE’ TO LIFE

In response to the last lesson (which explored how the concept of time is related to forming values and morals), Mick, a Reform Mormon (non-LDS) from Germany writes:


“Yes, the article gives reason why our existence of aging, illness and mortality might have some higher purpose. But I am not sure whether the author’s premise (if we never experienced the limitations of time, we would feel no necessity to engage with the various aspects of existence, - just hanging around in an eternity perceived to be utterly boring) is really that much self-evident as he appears to think. (To be honest: I am very much unsure whether my Para phrasal interpretation of his opinion is correct.)
If we were able to think in terms of infinity (I think we are not), - would we then not also necessarily - or at least possibly - experience infinite curiosity and interest in countless matters?
It is understandable that we all wish to attribute some deeper meaning to our suffering in the limitations of time and space (and we certainly all suffer to a greater or lesser extent), - but is it really more than wishful thinking?
I mean, is there any, at least tiny evidence for the basic Reform Mormon concept of infinite individual existence? If the stream of memories, valuations and intentions that we all agree to call our individual `self´ is nothing more than the physiological and biochemical interplay of some billions of neurons (for which there is considerable scientific evidence as far as I know it), then why should there be reason to believe in a pre-conception and post-mortem individual existence?
Until now, I am unable to figure that out. May be there are some enlightening comments turning up soon.”

Because Mick makes some great points and asks questions that should not be ignored by Reform Mormons, I will devote the next several Gospel Doctrine lessons to the ideas in his letter.

I encourage all readers to join in the discussion by emailing their thoughts to: Reformmormons@aol.com.

I think that every point in Mick’s letter can be addressed by looking at two topics which will serve as the focus of the next few lesson. We will approach these two topics through the prism of Mormon history, and refer to the teachings of Joseph Smith as we explore possible answers.

The two topics we will examine are:

THE MORMON VIEW OF REALITY

And

THE MYTH OF ‘A HIGHER PURPOSE’ TO LIFE

Why consider these two topics? Because they directly relate to two questions that Mike asks:

1. “… is there any, at least tiny evidence for the basic Reform Mormon concept of infinite individual existence? [This refers to Joseph Smith’s teaching that the spirit is uncreated, existing before one’s birth and surviving one’s death.] If the stream of memories, valuations and intentions that we all agree to call our individual `self´ is nothing more than the physiological and biochemical interplay of some billions of neurons (for which there is considerable scientific evidence as far as I know it), then why should there be reason to believe in a pre-conception and post-mortem individual existence? “

2. Isn’t our wish to attribute some deeper meaning to our suffering in the limitations of time and space really no more than wishful thinking?

I’ll begin by offering an answer to the second question and then, over the course the next few lessons, explain how it relates to the first.


“WISHFUL THINKING “ : THE INVENTION OF A “HIGHER PURPOSE”


“Isn’t our wish to attribute some deeper meaning to our suffering in the limitations of time and space really no more than wishful thinking?”

My answer to this question is an emphatic, “Yes.” The idea that there is a higher purpose to the conditions of life on earth is indeed nothing more than wishful thinking.

From my reflections on the Mormonism’s New Paradigm (the distinct theology that Joseph Smith developed later in his life), I reject the very idea that there is a “higher purpose” to life, and I do it for this reason: implicit in the idea of “higher purpose to life” is the idea that there is something “higher than life.” The idea that there is a “higher purpose to existence” implies that there must be an existence of greater value than this one.

I am convinced that a careful study of Joseph Smith’s writings and teachings (in chronological order) indicates that as he matured in his understanding of things, he began laying down principles that would eventually undermine the “wishful thinking” regarding a supposed “higher purpose.”

THE REALITY OF THE WORLD IN WHICH JOSEPH SMITH LIVED


Human beings are creative. Taking the elements around him, primitive man organized them into weapons, tools, clothing, housing, art objects,--and eventually he created communities, governments and laws. Realizing that society was the product of their creativity, primitive people looked at the natural world and assumed that the natural order--like the social order--was created by intelligent beings like themselves.

The time into which Joseph Smith was born (1805) and during which Mormonism was introduced, was unique in the annals of recorded history.

For hundreds of years, philosophers, artists and scientists had been questioning the basic assumptions of traditional religion. Not only specific religions, but the very concept of an all-powerful God who created and controlled all existence was itself being not only questioned, by also rejected. The rise of science and the valuing of rational thought over faith and mere belief threatened the basic premises of traditional religions.

Throughout all of recorded history, priests and prophets has taught that society would only prosper, that human life could only be preserved, if people put their faith in God and obeyed without question His commands.

But as the Dark Ages (an age of faith) gave way to the religious skepticism and scientific methods of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (“The Age of Reason”), just the opposite took place: societies became more stable, people became more productive and prosperous, while human life not only increased in length but also improved in quality. The ancient Greek concept of democracy and the ideals of the ancient Roman republic were revived and joined with a radical new concept: the Natural Rights of the individual. One result of this philosophic revolution was the formation of free, representative republics--such as the United States.

Joseph Smith was a first generation American. (Both of his parents were born before the American colonies declared its independence from England and therefore had technically been subjects of the British crown.)

During Joseph’s youth, American society was in the middle of a huge philosophic shift.

Everywhere the positive fruits of the scientific approach to reality, of reason and individualism were evident. Only a small minority of Americans were officially affiliated with a church or religious organization, and many in this minority felt that their faith was threatened by rise of science and secular thought. The “rugged individualism” that was necessary to survive and prosper on the American frontier was often at odds with the communitarian values of traditional religion. Those who seemed to prosper the most in the new nation were those who relied on their own understanding of things, who tended to be skeptical of traditional religion, who were willing to “do it themselves” rather than pray for God to do it for them. In the American cities and on the frontier, a new type of character was emerging (a character that was often described as “rough,” “un-hewed,” and “uniquely American“), and while the majority of people who embodied this new character type were un-churched, they were still deeply devoted to the idea of God--though the nature of this God began to change into a Deity more in keeping with the demands of human survival in the natural world.

Those who remained devoted to traditional religious concepts (the forefathers of current Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism), began to view secular thought, scientific enquiry and material prosperity as threats to faith--which, indeed, they were. To counteract their influence, Christian revivalism began--resulting in the frenzied, emotion-laden Camp Meetings to which young Joseph Smith was taken by his devout mother, Lucy.

A popular theme of these meetings was that “worldly” learning (education) and prosperity, individual industry and accomplishments were essentially meaningless unless they were used in the service of God. Indeed, education, prosperity and individual accomplishment could lead to pride, to the “dangerous” idea that one was master of one’s own fate, with no need to rely on God or the “grace and mercies of Christ.” Accomplishment could easily led to sin and damnation unless it was used in the service of a “higher good.”

Joseph Smith’s family was deeply divided. A growing majority of scholars and historians are now of the opinion that his mother was bipolar and that her mood swings and debilitating bouts of depression (which profoundly effected her family) were made worse by her obsession with religion and her worries regarding “the salvation of her eternal soul.”

Joseph’s father (Joseph Smith, Sr.) was irreligious. Raised by a religious skeptic who often quoted Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Joseph Smith Sr. nevertheless took an interest in folk-magic, which he approached as a pseudo-science. On top of this, the man also exhibited all the symptoms of alcoholism--which was a much more wide-spread problem in early 19th century America than commonly believed. He refused to attend religious meetings with his wife, and was deeply critical of the local clergy men in which she put her trust.

The philosophic divide between Joseph’s parents echoed the philosophic divide in American society at the time. Joseph Smith’s career as a theologian was born of a desire to reconcile the skepticism and rationalism of the new century to orthodox faith of the past. The result was The Book of Mormon, which as a theological document is in harmony with traditional Christianity--mostly--but here are a few important exceptions. In the last sections of the book that Joseph dictated (II Nephi), some radical new concepts are laid down that actually undermine traditional Christianity--chief among these, is the doctrine that the so-called “Fall” of Adam and Eve was, in actuality, a good thing. This doctrine, laid out in chapter two of II Nephi, turns the Christian view of the natural world on its head.

In essence, Joseph Smith taught that Adam “fell upwards,” that eating the Fruit of the Knowledge resulted in human progress--not damnation in Hell. He taught that the universe was by nature complex, that in the natural order there was “opposition in all things,” and that Adam and Eve’s eyes had to be opened (by eating the Fruit of Knowledge) so that they could discern the nature of things and the opposition. Only in this way could Adam and Eve make choices, therefore effecting their own destiny as God intended,

This seemingly simply reinterpretation of the Adam and Eve myth set the groundwork for Joseph’s eventual rejection of not only ever major tenant of orthodox Christianity, but also of monotheism itself.

At the beginning of his career, Joseph publicized his ideas by resorting to a device used in the Camp Meetings: he claimed to have seen visions, to have been visited by angels, to have had ideas revealed to him by supernatural means. The ploy worked--but only for a time. The earliest converts to Mormonism were more attracted by the claims of supernatural activity and Christian certainty than by the new theology Joseph was revealing. In the first years of Mormon history, converts often rose up in defiance of Joseph, claiming their own revelations by the same means he originally employed: dreams, visions, the use of seer-stones and magical instruments. The result of these conflicting claims was confusion, and sometimes--this being frontier society--the confusion threatened to break out into violence.

For the first few years, Joseph combated the confusion in the only way he knew how: he simply claimed to have had another supernatural revelation that trumped the claims of his adversaries. Perhaps he would have continued down this road if --as his detractors then and now assert--his objective was to set himself up as absolute dictator of a church.

But Joseph’s life is evidence of another objective altogether. Joseph’s most direct influence in American history (indeed, the influence of 19th century Mormonism itself in American history) was as a colonizer, as a builder of cities. In Kirtland, Ohio and Independence, Missouri, his attempts at city building failed; but in creating the city of Nauvoo, Illinois, he succeeded.

What had changed between the early days of Ohio and Missouri Mormonism and the later days of Illinois Mormonism?

What had changed was Joseph’s approach to understanding the nature of reality and his way of presenting and defending his ideas.

In Ohio and Missouri, fresh from his supernatural claims regarding The Book of Mormon, Joseph taught solely by revelation. There may have been some reasoning in the revelations he dictated to his scribes, but what gave them a sense of authority was the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord…” The message was clear: this was not Joseph speaking by virtue of his own reasoning, but God issuing commands.

In all of recorded history there is no objective evidence that a God ever built a city, ran a business, or established a school (not even a seminary or school of theology).

But this is exactly what Joseph and the Mormons were doing. They were colonizers, frontier people and city-builders. These activities are human endeavors, the success of which demand rational thought, “worldly knowledge,“ and political maneuvering rather than absolute declarations of Divine will.

In Kirtland, Joseph Smith began to educate himself--first through private tutoring under the renowned frontier evangelist ,Sydney Rigdon ,who, along with his congregation of several hundred Ohioans, had converted to Mormonism--giving the infant movement its first major jolt in growth. A Mormon seminary called The School of the Prophets, and modeled after those of mainstream Protestant denominations, was founded in Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph and the Mormon elders were instructed by non-Mormons in Hebrew and ancient languages, as well as the basics of contemporary Biblical criticism. Joseph even hired a Jewish rabbi to instruct him and the Mormon elders.

Because Joseph had already (in The Book of Mormon) rejected the idea that the Bible (or any other book of scripture) was infallible, he enthusiastically embraced what might be called the “higher Biblical criticism” of his day. He began approaching theological issues by examining the social and historical context of Biblical texts, by exploring the various shades of meaning a particular word might have in Hebrew and Greek. He began to think more like a scholar--or at least, a serious student.

During the last years of his life in Nauvoo, Illinois, he only resorted to dictating revelations (“Thus saith the Lord..”) when he and his followers were at logger-heads (as in the case of polygamy and his liberal views on human sexuality and “non-traditional families”). In his King Follett Discourse (which laid out his radical new theology), Joseph speaks as a philosopher, staking his claims to being a true prophet on his ability to reason soundly.

Of the 134 sections in The Doctrine & Covenants (the most read volume of Joseph’s post-Book of Mormon teachings), the vast majority were dictated in the early years of Mormonism, between 1828 and 1835. Nearly all of these contain the phrase “Thus saith the Lord,” and have to do with the day to day affairs of governing small church. Of The Doctrines & Covenant’s 134 sections, only nine were dictated during Smith‘s five years in Nauvoo. It is in these sections that one finds Mormonism‘s most profound theological innovations, and nearly all of these sections are extracts from Joseph’s journals, letters and sermons, rather than “Thus saith the Lord” revelations.

Joseph evolved from a village seer whose claims were steeped in the mystical and supernatural, into theologian/philosopher who presented his ideas as his own and argued rationally in their defense. He evolved from someone who tried to reconcile the natural world to pre-existing idea of a supernatural Supreme Being into someone who finally insisted that one’s beliefs and one’s ideas regarding God must be consistent with the reality of the natural world.

In short, he evolved from a religious fraud into an authentic prophet.


THE MYTH OF “A HIGHER PURPOSE.”

What does any of this have to do with the subject of this lesson?

Plenty. As I pointed out earlier, the idea of “a higher purpose” to life implies that there is something of higher value than life. Traditional religions of both the East and West accept this notion, which is why so often religious fundamentalism results on a devaluing of human life and violence in the service of some “higher purpose.”

Joseph Smith taught “men are that they might have joy.” (II Nephi 2:25) He also wrote, “Happiness is the object of our creation.”

What this simple teaching in effect states is that human life is an end in itself. This resonates with the secular idea that humans by nature have certain inherent rights--the first being a right to their own life and person, and a right to pursue their own happiness. (This, of course, is in opposition to the idea that one is born indebted to God or whatever powers may be, due to Original Sin or bad Karma.)

If human life is an end in itself, if “happiness is the object of our existence,” then there is no need for a higher purpose.

Morality is not related to the dictates of a higher power or being, is not bound up in hopes for some future existence in an ethereal “afterlife,“ (what early Mormon Parley P. Pratt called “an immaterial fairyland” ). Instead, morality becomes the rational means of preserving human life on earth, and uses existence as we now know and experience it as its point of reference. Ultimate Truth within Mormonism has nothing to do with “a higher purpose” or “the way things should be.” Instead “Truth is a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be.”


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

What could be the negative results of believing that life on earth must serve some higher purpose?

What theological and philosophical concepts are implied when one speaks of a “higher purpose” to life, to existence?

What could be the positive results of viewing each human life as an end in itself, of accepting Joseph Smith’s idea that “happiness is the object of our creation?”
How has the idea of “a higher purpose” effected your thinking, your actions and the quality of your life--positively and negatively?

Join in the discussion by emailing your thoughts to: reformmormons@aol.com

VALUES, TIME & ETERNITY

This is the fourth in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality, ethics and values. In previous lessons we explored how the Mormon doctrine that God was once human and that humans may progress to Godhood, undermines the traditional belief that God or some other supreme authority decrees what is moral or immoral. We also explored how Mormonism’s radical doctrine of Free Agency (Free Will) undermines the popular concept that we are free merely to obey or disobey the commandments of God; that Free Agency means that each individual--not God--must decided what his or her values will be.

In this lesson, we will explore what conditions are required for us to chose our values. We will do this by referring to he Mormon concept of Pre-existence as well as the Mormon story of Adam and Eve as contained in Mormon scripture and in the Reform Mormon Endowment Ceremony.



IF YOU HAD FOREVER


Imagine a world without pain, discomfort, sickness, injury or death. Imagine not only that these things are no more, but also imagine that they never existed; that the very concepts are unknown to you. Imagine eternity stretching out before you.


If you had forever to do whatever you wanted, what would you want to do now? What would you value today?


Is there a book you want to read? Would you read it today, or would you wait until tomorrow, next week, next year or a thousand years from now? Since you are eternal and have forever, what is the rush? What difference would it make?


What about travel? Would you take off today or wait until some point in the future when perhaps you felt more like traveling?


Consider any human endeavor. If one had forever to live, what would be the hurry--or even the point--in doing it? Everything could be put off indefinitely with absolutely no negative results. If you had forever, the concept of time would be meaningless because for you time would never run out.



PRE-EXISTENCE & PROGRESS


Mormon doctrine holds that some aspect of the individual is eternal and co-equal with God; some aspect of the individual existed “before the foundation of the world.” Before our existence in this world, there was a Pre-existence.


In the Mormon story of the Pre-existence, our Heavenly Parents saw that this eternal aspect of each of us was capable of progressing eternally; of growing in knowledge until we might become like God. In short, we might become Gods ourselves and continue to progress ever onward.


But in order to obtain knowledge, we had to progress onward to the next stage of things--which meant “coming to earth and obtaining a body”--to use a popular LDS Mormon phrase.



ADAM & EVE IN TIME



In Mormon tradition, the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the individual’s life on earth.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were placed on earth as eternal beings; they had physical bodies but were not subject to pain, injury, disease or death. Living under the watchful eye of God in the Garden of Eden, they were innocent (and ignorant) like children. “The Book of Mormon,” in II Nephi, chapter 2, teaches that as long as Adam and Eve continued in this condition, they were unable to change or progress. In fact, were they to continue in this condition forever, the very purpose for their being on earth would be frustrated.


In the Reform Mormon Endowment Ceremony, Adam and Eve see that while they are in the Garden (where all of their needs seem to be immediately met), one day is much the same as the next. With no variation in their situation, with no end in sight, they merely exist.


When they ask God about this, they are shown the Tree of Knowledge. When they eat the fruit, they’re eyes are opened and they begin to see the garden and the world quite differently. They realize that they are subject to disease, injury and eventually death.


With this new understanding, the concept of time has meaning to them. One day is suddenly different from the next. Because they no longer “have forever,” they must use their Free Agency to decide how they will use their time. Because they must now see to their own needs, how they chose to use heir time--what they will value--becomes the crucial issue they face and the defining aspect of their moral development.



“ADAM FELL THAT MEN MIGHT BE”


“The Book of Mormon” teaches that “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”


Our humanity is manifested when we realize that we do not live in a Garden of Eden where all of our needs and wants are instantly satisfied; when our eyes are opened and we see the nature of relationship with the world in which we live; when we realize that one day we will die; that we survive and prosper by our own efforts; that our emotional state (be it joyous or not) is the result of what we think, say and do--in short, that our joy is dependent upon our values.


Knowing that we are mortal, that we will one day die is what gives this day meaning and value. Because our survival is not guaranteed, each of us must determine which resources and endeavors have the greater value as far as survival is concerned. Since we don’t have forever, we must decided for ourselves which talents and abilities we will develop at a given time. Because we are bound by the limitations of time and space, we must decide upon which endeavors and relationships we will focus.


In short, it is only by realizing that we are subject to the conditions of time and place, that any thing can have value to us. It is through this realization that our true humanity is manifested; it is through our response to our own mortality, that our morality (our values) is revealed.



JOIN THE DISCUSSION



Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions regarding this lesson to:

reformmormons@aol.com


ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.

We look forward to hearing from you!

FREE AGENCY or SIMPLY FREE TO DO AS WE’RE TOLD?

This is the third in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality and ethics. In the previous lesson we explored how the Mormon doctrine that God was once human and that humans may progress to Godhood, undermines the traditional belief that God or some other supreme authority decrees what is moral or immoral. In this lesson we will begin to explore the Mormon doctrine of Free Agency (Free Will) and its relationship to morality and values.



WE ARE MERELY FREE TO CHOSE BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE?

Since Mormons were the most persecuted religious minority in American history, Mormons themselves have a deep love for freedom of religion. Yet even while sincerely revering individual liberty, few Mormons understand just how radical is the Mormon doctrine of individual Free Agency (Free Will.) Indeed, Mormonism is unique among the religions of the world with regard to this subject since it views the individual not as a creation of God but as a being who shares a common nature with God. Just as God’s Free Agency was not given to Him by another but is simply inherent in His nature, so human freedom was not given by God but is simply inherent in human nature.

Despite this radical belief, many Mormons tend to view individual Free Agency in much the same way as do believers in other Christian denominations: God determines what is moral and issues commandments accordingly, but leaves each individual free to either obey (reaping blessings) or disobey (suffering punishment or loss.)

Free Agency is viewed as the freedom to accept or rejecting a previously divinely ordained universal good. But since Mormonism’s radically new vision of a limited God who was once human undermines this limited view of Free Agency is limited and incomplete at best. At its worst, traditional views of Free Agency actually undermine the foundations for a truly moral character.



LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR


Imagine that you are living under the rule of one of the absolute dictators that rose to power over the past century. The dictator, wielding absolute power, issues a law; he declares all citizens are free to decide if they will obey the law or not; those who obey, will be left alone to live their lives; those who disobey will be imprisoned, exiled or executed.

Living under such a system, you are in reality only free do to as you’re told; to disobey is to suffer some sort of punishment. Under such a system, your obedience or disobedience has nothing whatsoever to do with your character, with your personal objectives or goals for your life, with the people or things that you may value. In fact, the so-called “freedom” you have under such a government (the freedom to do as you’re commanded or suffer punishment) would probably undermine your personal objectives, goals and values.

Even among those religions that revere human freedom, God is still imagined to be a sort of cosmic dictator; a supreme authority Who rules according to His will and unto Whom the individual can render only obedience or disobedience.


QUESTIONS:

What does life under a dictatorship have in common with the traditional notion of an all-powerful God who gives salvation, exaltation or damnation to individuals based on their obedience to His will?

Can a dictator determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can any outside force or power determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can God?

What role does one’s personal values and loves play in living a moral and ethical life? What role does integrity play in living a moral and ethical life?

Why would it be difficult to live a life of integrity under a dictatorship or in a society where what one should value and love has already been determined by the authorities in charge?

Why might it be difficult to live a life of integrity if one believes that God has already determined what one should value and love?


JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.

We look forward to hearing from you!

FREE AGENCY or SIMPLY FREE TO DO AS WE’RE TOLD?

This is the third in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality and ethics. In the previous lesson we explored how the Mormon doctrine that God was once human and that humans may progress to Godhood, undermines the traditional belief that God or some other supreme authority decrees what is moral or immoral. In this lesson we will begin to explore the Mormon doctrine of Free Agency (Free Will) and its relationship to morality and values.



WE ARE MERELY FREE TO CHOSE BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE?

Since Mormons were the most persecuted religious minority in American history, Mormons themselves have a deep love for freedom of religion. Yet even while sincerely revering individual liberty, few Mormons understand just how radical is the Mormon doctrine of individual Free Agency (Free Will.) Indeed, Mormonism is unique among the religions of the world with regard to this subject since it views the individual not as a creation of God but as a being who shares a common nature with God. Just as God’s Free Agency was not given to Him by another but is simply inherent in His nature, so human freedom was not given by God but is simply inherent in human nature.

Despite this radical belief, many Mormons tend to view individual Free Agency in much the same way as do believers in other Christian denominations: God determines what is moral and issues commandments accordingly, but leaves each individual free to either obey (reaping blessings) or disobey (suffering punishment or loss.)

Free Agency is viewed as the freedom to accept or rejecting a previously divinely ordained universal good. But since Mormonism’s radically new vision of a limited God who was once human undermines this limited view of Free Agency is limited and incomplete at best. At its worst, traditional views of Free Agency actually undermine the foundations for a truly moral character.



LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR


Imagine that you are living under the rule of one of the absolute dictators that rose to power over the past century. The dictator, wielding absolute power, issues a law; he declares all citizens are free to decide if they will obey the law or not; those who obey, will be left alone to live their lives; those who disobey will be imprisoned, exiled or executed.

Living under such a system, you are in reality only free do to as you’re told; to disobey is to suffer some sort of punishment. Under such a system, your obedience or disobedience has nothing whatsoever to do with your character, with your personal objectives or goals for your life, with the people or things that you may value. In fact, the so-called “freedom” you have under such a government (the freedom to do as you’re commanded or suffer punishment) would probably undermine your personal objectives, goals and values.

Even among those religions that revere human freedom, God is still imagined to be a sort of cosmic dictator; a supreme authority Who rules according to His will and unto Whom the individual can render only obedience or disobedience.


QUESTIONS:

What does life under a dictatorship have in common with the traditional notion of an all-powerful God who gives salvation, exaltation or damnation to individuals based on their obedience to His will?

Can a dictator determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can any outside force or power determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can God?

What role does one’s personal values and loves play in living a moral and ethical life? What role does integrity play in living a moral and ethical life?

Why would it be difficult to live a life of integrity under a dictatorship or in a society where what one should value and love has already been determined by the authorities in charge?

Why might it be difficult to live a life of integrity if one believes that God has already determined what one should value and love?


JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.

We look forward to hearing from you!

DISCUSSION & EMAILS ON THIS WEEK'S LESSON

In response to this week's lesson, "An All-powerful Being: Does God Determine What is Right and Wrong," the following email was received:

"Your last lesson on God was one of the best yet. Even though its just common sense....the whole concept of God's place in the natural world seems a tad radical when its written down in black and white. You write with such a sense of balance though, and anyone with half a logical cell in their brain would have to bow to your reasoning. You take what modern man must know and feel in his soul, but is afraid (for what ever reason) to put into words...and you do just that. I wish your lessons and articles could reach a greater audience, more readers than just those looking into the Reform Mormon movement. Keep up the good work!" Nancy Halverson

AN ALL-POWERFUL BEING: DOES GOD DETERMINE WHAT IS RIGHT & WRONG?

This is the second in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality and ethics. In this lesson we will compare the Mormon doctrine of Deity to the doctrine embraced by traditional monotheistic faiths and explore how these doctrines shape one’s approach to morality and ethics.


MORALITY BY COMMAND

Anciently codes of ethics and morals were enforced by command. Whether the command came from a tribal leader, from a king, from a god or through a priest, the impression made upon the minds of the people was the same: right and wrong were not up to debate, were not subject to discussion. A higher authority decided what was moral and immoral, and one had no right to do anything but obey. Understanding the principles behind the command was not important; only obedience.

As many Evangelicals and fundamentalists often say, “God gave us the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions.” LDS Mormons express the same sentiment somewhat differently when they teach, “Obedience is the first law of heaven.”

Traditionally when an individual has had trouble understanding or accepting a particular commandment, they have often been taught that they need to exercise faith in God or in the source from which the command was issued. In such circumstances, faith means a non-critical, non-thinking, non-judgmental acceptance of the commandment; in short, turning off one’s mind and merely doing as one is told. Thus many traditional religions praise the concept of “faith”--by which they mean accepting an idea without any evidence to support it. In the absence of any real understanding of the principle being advanced, faith--in and of itself--is presented as a virtue and a moral value.


“I WAS MERELY FOLLOWING ORDERS” IS NO EXCUSE FOF IMMORALITY

Such “faith” is nothing more than accepting an idea blindly; it is nothing more than admitting that one is acting in total ignorance. In fact, far from serving as a foundation for morality, this type of “faith” is actually an attempt to avoid personal moral responsibility. (To take personal responsibility for one’s morals, one would have to ask questions, challenge commandments when they are issued and harbor doubts.)

Those who committed war crimes during World War II later defended themselves by explaining that they were merely obeying the laws of the governments under which they lived; that they were “merely following orders,” and that it was the dictators who ruled them who were morally responsible for the atrocities committed.

Such a defense rang hollow then , and it still does today. We live in a world in which the concept of the individual is widely accepted. Most western societies are based on a rational understanding of human nature and individual responsibility.

Yet religions have traditionally envisioned a God who is divine by virtue of His absolute power. The Bible was the product of ancient peoples whose societies were ruled by kings and lords who exerted total control. It was only natural that these people envisioned God primarily in terms of power, control and kingly glory. Often these people attempted to exterminate the citizens of various cities or the worshippers of various gods because their God--who they worshipped as absolute ruler of heaven and earth--had commanded them to do so.

Through the Bible and other ancient scripture, modern men and women have inherited the ancient phrases that these people used in reference to God: “King of Kings,” “Lord of Lords,’ “Ruler of Heaven and Earth.” But modern men and women no longer reverence kings, lords and absolute rulers. In fact, those who rule with absolute power are viewed with suspicion; they are feared, if not hated.

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This saying is accepted by many as true. Yet a great number of these same people revere God as one who rules the cosmos with absolute power.

Questions:

If one believes that absolute power corrupts, how does one justify venerating a God on the basis of His supposed absolute power?

If those who blindly follow the commands of human dictators are held morally responsible as individuals for their actions, how should those who blindly follow the commandment of their God viewed?

“BUT GOD IS DIFFERENT FROM MAN,”
or
REJECTING THE NATURAL WORLD

Followers of traditional monotheism would most likely say that the above questions are groundless because God is different from man; His nature is completely unlike ours. In fact, many theologians would say that God has no nature as the concept is commonly understood.

The word “nature” applies to those things that are not created, that are not made, but simply exist or occur on their own. But traditional monotheism teaches that one all-powerful God created existence. In fact, it could be argued that monotheism completely rejects the concept of nature altogether. Because God created all things, He is the “First Cause”; nothing exists independently of Him; nothing evolves or “just happens” on its own. As the creator of all existence, God alone holds ultimate power; He alone has the right to determine what is moral or immoral. Humans, being but mere creatures whose existence is dependent on God’s will, have no right to question, doubt or disobey whatever commands issue from the mouth of God. When God speaks, the thinking has been done.



“AS MAN NOW IS, GOD ONCE WAS”
orACCEPTING THE SUPREMACY OF NATURE

In the 1840’s the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith began teaching a radically new concept of God that had traditional religionists denouncing him as a heretic, a blasphemer and even an atheist. Yet this new Mormon doctrine of deity laid the groundwork for a new approach to morality and ethics.

The Mormon doctrine of God has been summed up as follows:

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

Contrary to traditional monotheism, God and man are not two separate kinds of being: God was once human; humans may become Gods.

Mormonism teaches that nature (existence itself) was not created by God; nature simply exists on its own. Thus Mormonism accepts the basic premise behind rationalism and scientific thought. Concerning the nature of existence, Mormon scriptures declare: "The elements are eternal." (D&C 93:34)

The world as we know it was not created by God from nothing, but was organized by the Gods from naturally existing elements. In Mormon scripture‘s “creation story,” God says to His fellow Gods:

We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth... (Abraham 3:24)

Mormonism teaches that God is not omnipotent; it is nature alone (existence itself ) and the laws of nature that are omnipotent. In Mormon theology truth is defined as a knowledge of existence. In the 1840’s Mormon theologian Parley P. Pratt wrote:

"The laws of truth are omnipotent and unalterable--no power in heaven or earth can break them in the least degree."

Mormonism teaches that God became God by acquiring knowledge of the truth (a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be). Contrary to other religions, within Mormonism God does not decide what is true and false, but like other intelligent beings, He must act in harmony with the facts of existence; God's righteous and morality were acquired character traits.

Humans, too, if they are to progress, must also come to terms to with the facts of existence; they, too must acquired righteousness and morality as personal character traits.


“YOU MUST LEARN TO BE GODS YOURSELVES”
Or
YOU MUST LEARN MORALITY ON YOUR OWN


Joseph Smith taught, “You must learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done.”

Mormonism envisions God as moral, as righteous, and invites humans to partake of this same morality and righteousness. This is state of being is not something that can be given by God to us as a reward for having obeyed commandments or having followed some divinely predetermined program or pattern of behavior. A moral, godly character must be cultivated by the individual alone.

Joseph smith taught that the being we revernce as God was once a human who was born, lived and died on an earth similiar to our own. Thus learning to “become Gods” ourselves, means starting upon the same path that God once trod--embracing life on earth, living fully and in accordance with our nature, and learning in the process. The individual must think for him or herself, must make his or her own decisions, take action and bear the full responsibility for actions taken.

In short, morality is founded upon actively thinking for one’s self, not blindly obeying dictates and “commands from on high.” In moral issues what matters the most is not, “what saith the Lord God, but “what do you say?” and, even more importantly, what will you do. Just as war criminals can’t hide behind the skirts of dictators, so the individual can not hide behind the skirts of an all-powerful God. Each of us is, in fact, our own person.


And so when it comes to morality, one finds oneself where God began: an individual with Free Agency (free will) standing before the natural world and asking, “What do I think of all of this? What am I to make of it? What will I value, and how will my values effect the choices I will make and the things I will do?”


REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“You must learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done…” Joseph Smith

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.

We look forward to hearing from you!