FAITH IN CONTEXT OF TIME

1 April 2006

(In the Reform Mormon liturgical calendar, Spring is the Season of Faith. With this lesson, we begin a new series of lessons in which we will explore this principle as understood within Reform Mormonism.)


Frequently when people think of the concept of Faith, they do so in context of reality and existence.

For instance, they know that reality appears to be a certain way by virtue of the information they receive through their physical senses (sight, sound, touch, smell).

Traditionally, many people have tended to think of Faith as the ability to believe in something, the nature of which flies in the face of reality. Many traditional religions present the concept of Faith as the ability to believe in the existence of the supernatural, or in a concept, being or power despite the fact that all of your physical senses and rational faculties are telling you that such a thing is, by its very nature, impossible.

Despite talk of “exercising faith,” in this context, faith is not so much a matter of “exercising“ or taking action as much as it is a failure to act. “Exercising faith” usually means to stop thinking critically, to ignore what your senses and common sense might be telling you; it is a refusal to deal with reality when it contradicts an idea for which there is not the slightest evidence. Many religious traditions praise as a virtue the ability to ignore what is objectively real in favor of belief in the fanciful and the supernaturally miraculous.

Once in a discussion regarding early Mormon claims of the supernatural and miraculous, a friend claimed that he believed these claims as soon as he heard of them. “I’ve always been blessed with the gift of Faith,” he said. Not to be unkind, but after seeing the disastrous outcome of his exercising this type of faith in other areas of his life, I came to the conclusion that what he called a “gift,” was, in fact, nothing more than being gullible.

While belief is a component of the principle of Faith, there is another context in which the principle can be understood---a context which can be more beneficial and of greater practical value.

The context is that of time.

We exist within the context of time, in the present. We can not know with infallible certainty what the future holds, be it a millions years from now or fifteen seconds from now.

Our physical senses and our faculty of reason are the means of sustaining our lives, of dealing with other living things as well as with the forces and elements are work in the natural world. Because of the Free Agency with which humans are endowed, because other life forms (be they plants, animals, viruses) move and respond to their physical environments, because the environment itself (weather conditions, geology, etc.) is in a constant state of movement and change, existence is filled with opposition.


The person who remains passive and refrains from serious thoughtful action, puts his or her own existence within time as risk. To not only survive, but to prosper, to progress and to achieve some degree of happiness and joy, human beings must use their Free Agency. They must in effect eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge so that their eyes are opened to the reality of the opposition that is everywhere in nature. Most important of all, they must think and act upon the knowledge that they have.

As “The Book of Mormon” says:

“…it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things….
…..to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man….the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it be that he was enticed by the one or the other…[humans] have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon…Wherefore men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” (See “The Book of Mormon,” II Nephi 2:11,15-16, 26-27)

Continually existing within the present moment, we are capable of knowing the present. We also have the ability to learn about the past. The future, however, is another matter. Mormons often speak symbolically of a veil that separates time from eternity. It could be said that this same veil separates the present from the future. We simply are incapable of seeing beyond it.

However as human beings we do possess one particular attribute in common with Deity that allows us to reach beyond this veil.

That attribute is imagination; the ability to envision what the future might hold.

Taking the knowledge we have regarding the past and the present moment, we can, by virtue of reason, discover principles upon which we can chose to act.

By virtue of our imagination, we can envision the possible outcome of those actions based upon our knowledge of these principles. If after careful thought and consideration of these things, we may become reasonably convinced that a certain action taken will lead to a particular result.

In every case, regardless of how well thought out the course of action might be, risk is involved. With opposing forces constantly at work in the natural world, there is always a chance that our actions might be undermined or that the results might not be those that were imagined or desired. In every case, as far as what we are actually capable of actually knowing, failure or disappointment are possibilities.

When our belief that the actions we are contemplating becomes so firm that we are willing to take a chance, to take a risk and take action---we are exercising Faith.

Every human accomplishment is the result of Faith---not faith as the belief in the supernatural, the impossible or the improbable, but Faith as a principle of action within the context of time and nature.

In the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith taught:

“…faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.

“If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.

“Were this class to go back and reflect upon the history of their lives, from the period of their first recollection, and ask themselves what principle excited them to action, or what gave them energy and activity in all their lawful avocations, callings, and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be that it was the assurance which we had of the existence of things which we had not seen as yet?

“Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion, in order to obtain them?

“Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them?

“Would you have ever sown if you had not believed that you would reap? Would you have ever planted if you had not believed that you would gather? Would you have ever asked unless you had believed that you would receive? Would you have ever sought unless you had believed that you would have found? Or would you have ever knocked unless you had believed that it would have been opened unto you?

“In a word, is there anything that you would have done, either physical or mental, if you had not previously believed? Are not all your exertions of every kind dependent on your faith?
Or may we not ask, what have you, or what do you possess, which you have not obtained by reason of your faith? Your food, your raiment, your lodgings, are they not all by reason of your faith? Reflect, and ask yourselves if these things are not so.

“Turn your thoughts on your own minds, and see if faith is not the moving cause of all action in yourselves; and if the moving cause in you, is it not in all other intelligent beings?”

(Joseph Smith, “The Lectures On Faith,” Section 1:9-11)
JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

Jump in and join the discussion! If this lesson has triggered some thoughts or insights, if it has provoked questions--share your these by emailing them to us at:

Reformmormons@aol.com.
Your emails will be printed here. All views and opinions are welcomed

REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY

If you would like to be included in the upcoming Reform Mormon Directory, email the following information to: reformmormons@aol.com:

Your Full Name
Your place of residence (city, state, country)
Your Email address

Reform Mormons and those who merely have an interest in Reform Mormonism are invited to submit their names. Copies of this directory will only be emailed to those who include their names within it.

REFORM MORMONISM AT MY SPACE

A new Reform Mormonism website has been created at My Space, which can be linked by clicking on to:
http://groups.myspace.com/reformmormonism

THE SEASON OF FAITH: The Reform Mormon Liturgical Calendar

Faith. Knowledge. Revelation. Restoration.

These are the first four principles of Reform Mormonism.

These principles have always been important in all denominations of Mormonism since the religion came into being in the early 1830’s.

However, other denominations within Mormonism historically have tended to retreat from the doctrinal innovations of Joseph Smith introduced during the Nauvoo period of Mormon history, staying closer to the religion’s earlier links with Evangelical Christianity and Christian Primitivism. Theologically most Mormon denominations are similar to traditional Christianity--emphasizing an all-powerful God who, as creator of all things, commands that humanity love, worship and obey Him in order to win salvation and avoid punishment--be that punishment consignment to Hell or Outer Darkness, existence outside the immediate presence of God or eternity in a state or kingdom of lower glory. Within this context, most Mormon denominations have an understanding of Faith, Knowledge, Revelation and Restoration that is, in many important respects, quite different from that found within Reform Mormonism.

Reform Mormonism holds that Mormonism constitutes a completely new religion--one that grew out of the frontier Christianity of early 19th century American frontier, but which, during the late 1830’s and 1840’s, began advocating certain doctrines and philosophical concepts that not only contradicted earlier more traditional doctrines but which, in essence, undermined them completely.

Taking these theological innovations as a starting point, Reform Mormonism teaches that God and humanity are, in fact, the same type of beings; that they exist on the exact same principles. The individual is an uncreated entity within nature (as is God) and is completely autonomous and free (as is God). The purpose of human existence is happiness and progression--a process which is eternal. “As we now are, God once was; as God now is, we may become.”

Within this context, Reform Mormons have an understanding of Faith, Knowledge, Revelation and Restoration that is quite different than that which is found in other Mormon denominations.

Another major difference between Reform Mormonism and these denominations, is that Reform Mormonism focuses on the individual, the individual’s personal relationship with Deity and the individual’s personal progression. Like the ancient Jewish tradition in which Mormonism (like Christianity) has its roots, Reform Mormonism is a home-based religion--as opposed to a church/organization centered one. Each individual is his/her own Priest/Priestess to God. Because each of us is a child of God (sharing with God a common nature), each of us can approach God for ourselves without any other person, being or institution serving as our mediator. Each of us has Free Agency (Free Will), which is the innate authority to make our own decisions, pursue our own interests, initiate and pilot our own Eternal Progression. Each Reform Mormon serves as the Priesthood authority within his or her own homes and families--performing any and all religious ordinances and observing religious holidays.

Because the home is center of religious life, Reform Mormonism--unlike most Mormon denominations, but like most other world religions--has a liturgical calendar.

This calendar includes holidays that are celebrated within all branches of Mormonism--such as Christmas and Easter. But is also includes celebrations and commemorations of certain events within Mormon history. Some of these holidays include July 24 (Pioneer Day), February 16 (commemorating the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory), October 30 (the anniversary of the Haun’s Mill Massacre) and September 11 (the anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre).

In addition to these specific days, the Reform Mormon liturgical calendar divides the year into four seasons--one season for each of its first four principles.

The Season of Faith begins the first day of Spring.

The Season of Knowledge begins the first day of Summer.

The Season of Revelation begins on the evening of September 22nd--the anniversary of the date on which Joseph Smith claimed to have been visited by the Angel Moroni. In some years, this date is also the first day of Autumn.

The Season of Restoration begins on December 23, which is the anniversary of Joseph Smith’s birth and, in some years, the first day of Winter.

During each of these seasons, the principle associate with it is celebrated, studied and contemplated.

Beginning next week, we will begin exploring the principle of Faith as understood within Reform Mormonism. We will look at some of Mormonism’s foundational writings on the subject--such as “The Lectures on Faith” (which were delivered within the original School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio) and “The True Faith” by 19th century Mormon philosopher and theologian, Orson Pratt. Ideas and concepts found in these writings--as well as within the Mormon cannon of scripture--will be explored within the context of the individual’s Eternal Progression.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

To prepare for future Gospel Doctrine lessons, you’re invited to contemplate--and to share your views--on the following questions:

1. What is faith?

2.What is the relationship of faith to belief?

3. In what ways are faith and belief similar and different?
4. Is faith always a virtue? Why or why not?

5. What has been the role of faith in your life? How has it played a positive role in your life? How has it played a negative role in your life?

JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

Jump in and join the discussion! If this lesson has triggered some thoughts or insights, if it has provoked questions--share your these by emailing them to us at:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

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

REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY

If you would like to be included in the upcoming Reform Mormon Directory, email the following information to: reformmormons@aol.com:

Your Full Name
Your place of residence (city, state, country)
Your Email address

Reform Mormons and those who merely have an interest in Reform Mormonism are invited to submit their names. Copies of this directory will only be emailed to those who include their names within it.

REFORM MORMONISM AT MY SPACE

A new Reform Mormonism website has been created at My Space, which can be linked by clicking on to:
http://groups.myspace.com/reformmormonism

FEBRUARY 16th : THREE DEGRESS OF GLORY

On February 16, 1832 Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon recorded their Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory. Because this vision (published now as Section 76 of “The Doctrine & Covenants”) set the groundwork for that which is unique in Mormonism’s theology of eternity, Reform Mormons set aside February 16 as a holiday. Popularly called either “Three Degrees Day” or “The Day of Eternal Progression,” Reform Mormon use this day to meditate on the Universalist themes running throughout Mormonism’s unique theology, as well as on its positive view of humanity’s divine potential.

FEBRUARY 16th: THE DAY OF ETERNAL PROGRESSION


With backgrounds in Evangelicalism and Christian Primitivism, the first generation of Mormons tended to believe that the entire human race was divided into two groups: those who would be eternally damned in Hell and those who would be eternally saved in Heaven.
Even Joseph Smith himself defended the doctrine of Hell and Eternal Damnation when writing “The Book of Mormon.”

But even as the text of that book was being readied for publication, Joseph began to rethink the doctrine of Eternal Damnation. In a March 1830 personal revelation to Martin Harris (now published as Section 19 in “The Doctrine & Covenants” Section 19), Joseph taught that the words “Endless” and “Eternal” are used to describe God’s punishment not because of the duration of that punishment but because God and all his works are endless and eternal.

Joseph knew that rejecting the concept of eternally enduring damnation would cause a stir among many of his followers (given their Christian upbringing) and so he told Martin Harris “show not these things unto the world, for they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things, lest they perish.” (This is the originally version of this revelation as it was originally written and published in “A Book of Commandments,” not the abridged version that is currently published as Section19 of “The Doctrine & Covenants.”)
Joseph began to envision Hell as something similar to the Catholic notion of Purgatory: a temporary state from which one would be delivered once one had been punished for one’s un-repented sins; eventually all would be saved.

Most orthodox Christians considered the idea of Universal Salvation not only as heretical but also as undermining morality itself. After all, they reasoned, if all would eventually be saved, what was the incentive to live righteously? (Joseph Smith himself had put forth this idea when writing the earlier portions of “The Book of Mormon.”)

Also at stake was the concept of justice and fairness. Was it just or fair that in the end an unrepentant murderer would share the same “eternal reward” as the person who strove all her life to be righteous? Since Christians tended to believe in one Heaven in which are shared an equal reward, this line of questioning made perfect sense.


Unitarians and Universalists had been preaching universal salvation for years. Joseph Smith’s own father and paternal grandfather had, at various stages of their lives, been associated with these movements. As time progressed it became apparent to those who associated with him privately that even though Joseph Smith had written against the doctine of Universal Salvation in “The Book of Mormon,” in actuality, he shared his father’s and grandfather’s beliefs in the doctrine.

And so it not only surprised many Mormons, but also troubled some, when on February 16, 1832 Joseph Smith and his councilor, Sidney Rigdon had a vision of eternity that was not only rejected the orthodox Christian concept of Salvation versus Eternal Damnation, but also hinted that human nature itself was quite different than what was commonly believed.

Even Mormon leader Brigham Young admitted, "My traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was so directly contrary and opposed to my former education, I said, wait a little; I did not reject it, but I could not understand it" (Deseret News, Extra, September 14, 1852, p. 24).

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had been studying the Bible when they came across the Apostle Paul’s writings on the Resurrection of the Dead. Paul’s reference to there being “bodies Celestial and bodies Terrestrial” piqued their curiosity, and they decided to study further and pray over the matter.


Joseph Smith wrote:

"From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one."

After studying further in the Gospel of John, Joseph and Sidney decided to pray for further understanding and knowledge. As a result of their prayers, they envisioned a startling new concept of Eternal Life and set it down in writing. At first known simply as “The Vision,” it was widely circulated among Mormons and eventually was canonized as Section 76 of “The Doctrine & Covenants.”

Of "The Vision," Mormon pioneer leader Wilford Woodruff said it was "a revelation which gives more light, more truth, and more principle than any revelation contained in any other book we ever read."

In 1832 the majority of Christians believed that only Christians would inherit “The Kingdom of God.“ The majority of mankind would be damned. Thus it was believed that one’s eternal happiness would depend on whether one had accepted the right religion.


According to “The Vision,“ one’s religious affiliation, as well as the doctrines that one accepted, were not as important as one’s character, personal virtue and righteous. One's moral character would be manifested in one’s actions; works reveal personal virtue.

In “The Vision” the Glory of God--that is, God’s virtue, knowledge and power--was likened to the brilliant light of the sun. Those who become like God will inherit this glory: the Glory of the Sun, or Celestial Glory. “The Vision” went so far as to declare that those who inherited this Celestial Glory would., in fact, become Gods.


Because of their choices and works, some will not progress as far. Using the symbolism of light, “The Vision” says that some will inherit a glory that could be compared to the light of the Moon (Telestial Glory). Still others will progress and inherit a glory that could be compared to the Light of the Stars (Terrestrial Glory).


These various degrees of glory are not given to people by God or anyone else. One’s degree of glory is the direct result of the type of person that one has become--the knowledge gained, the virtue cultivated. Because of this, all people will have some degree of happiness in eternity.

Each of us is on an eternal journey not to a particular destination such as traditionally envisioned with Heaven and Hell, but journey towards becoming a particular type of person. We are each progressing, evolving; and since we are each a free agent, we each control the pace and extent of our progress and evolution. Being born in the image of God, each of us--by our very nature--can progress and become like God.


Joseph Smith likened “The Vision” of February 16, 1832 to a “light which burst upon the world,“ the truths of which were “so much beyond the narrow-mindedness of men, that every man is constrained to exclaim: "It came from God"' (“The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 11).

A REFORM MORMON HOLIDAY


Because of the new understanding of humanity’s nature and divine potential laid forth in “The Vision,“ Reform Mormons revere February 16th as a holiday. In some Reform Mormon homes, the Sacrament will be taken as part of the day’s main meal. In some of their homes, Reform Mormons will light three candles--symbolizing the Celestial, Telestial and Terrestrial Glories. Still others may read “The Vision,” published as Section 76 in “The Doctrine & Covenants,” and mediate upon it. What unites all will be the feeling of celebration and thankfulness for a vision of eternity in which all human beings will inherit a degree of glory and happiness; a vision in which the labels of “saved” and “damned” have no place; a vision that truly embraces all mankind.

Eternal Progression is central to Reform Mormonism. Whereas others might ask, “What must I do to be saved?,” Reform Mormons ask, “How can I become more like God?”

One key to answering this question can be found in Joseph Smith’s writing from December 1832 on the Three Degrees of Glory. Joseph begins by directing his followers to look within themselves to “the same light that quickened your understandings; which light proceeded forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space--The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed…” (See “The Doctrine & Covenants 88: 11-13)

He then wrote that individuals will only be able to inherit the degree of glory that they can “abide”--meaning, the degree of glory which they can stand or live with. (See verses 22-24)

Of Celestial glory and law, Joseph writes:

“….Verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law…” (Verse 25)
This is a radical doctrine to which few have paid much attention. Orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the earth (the natural world in which we all live) is fallen, corrupt and sinful. This doctrine is tied in with the doctrine of Original Sin which holds that human nature is likewise fallen, corrupt and sinful.

But Joseph Smith taught that the world (meaning the actual planet on which we all live) AT THIS TIME functions and abides under a celestial law BECAUSE it “filleth the measure of its creation” (meaning, it is true to its nature) and “trangresseth not the law”---meaning it operates in harmony with “the light” which is “the power” operating throughout all nature (see Verses 7-13) and which ITSELF is “the law by which all things are governed.”

The radical new doctrine that comes through is that one must look to Nature---existence as it actually is--to understand one’s self, to discover what is of real value and what is not, to learn what is ethical and what is not.

Just as the earth abides a celestial law BECAUSE it fulfills the measure of its creation (or nature), so each of us abides by celestial law when we strive to fulfill the measure of our creation (nature).

When Joseph Smith began writing “The Book of Mormon,” he initially continued to preach the Orthodox Christian concept that “the natural man [human nature] is an enemy to God.” (See Mosiah 3:19)

Joseph’s idea quickly changed--so much so that decades later Brigham Young, in preaching on that particular passage in “The Book of Mormon”, taught that because of the knowledge we now have, if those verses in Mosiah were to be written today they would state “the natural man is a friend of God.”

Mormonism’s final break with orthodox Christianity came during the Nauvoo period when this positive understanding of human nature became the dominant view among the leading theologians of Mormonism. Parley P. Pratt wrote against those who taught that human nature needed to be “overcome,” “subdued” or “weakened.”

Lorenzo Snow in summing up Joseph’s beliefs concerning God’s own history, gave the final key to understanding the path of humanity's progression to divinity: “As man now is, God once was…”

Understanding our own nature is part of the same process as understanding God. Joseph Smith taught, “If men do not understand God, they do not understand themselves.” By understanding God we can begin to envision and understand our own potential. By understanding ourselves (man as he now is) the means of our progression can be revealed.

The degree of happiness that we know in this life as well as “the degree of glory” we inherit in eternity will be result of our own individual effort in this direction. Our life on earth, our existence here in time, is not something to be “endured” or “suffered through,”--it is not a state that we must somehow “overcome.”

Our life on earth, our existence here in time is to be embraced, experienced and cultivated. Our progress and our “degree of glory” is in the here and now.


JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

Jump in and join the discussion! If this lesson has triggered some thoughts or insights, if it has provoked questions--share your these by emailing them to us at:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

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

REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY

If you would like to be included in the upcoming Reform Mormon Directory, email the following information to: reformmormons@aol.com:

Your Full Name
Your place of residence (city, state, country)
Your Email address

Reform Mormons and those who merely have an interest in Reform Mormonism are invited to submit their names.

READERS RESPOND: WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN THE FIRST MORMON?

From John Adrian in New York City:
"Very well done. I have always been a "fan" of Dr. Franklin and his bent for original thinking. The link to Brother Joseph is radical and will be very threatening to TBMs or Orthodox Mormons, but I think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become a haven for people who can't, or are too lazy to, think for themselves. Witness GBH's virtual denial of traditional LDS beliefs in his efforts to appeal to a wider audience. GBH's dilution of LDS theology, which does exist even if it is unpopular among to-day's TBMs, is upon his head. I, for one, left The Church in favor of Unitarian Universalism where development of my own theology is not just allowed, but encouraged...Thanks for your Marvelous Work and Wonder."

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: THE FIRST MORMON?

Last month the world celebrated the 300th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin’s birth.

The image that most Americans have of Franklin--the chubby, old gentleman with flowing gray locks on the side of his head and bald on top--belies the truth about the man. During his lifetime, Franklin was universally regarded as THE foremost scientist of his day, as well as one of the world’s most influential moral and political philosophers. Three hundred years later, one can not read any serious study on Enlightenment philosophy (or 18th century philosophy in general) that doesn’t include copious references to and quotes from the philosophic writings of Benjamin Franklin. He is also generally regarded as the first American to become an international celebrity. Rulers, politicians, artists and philosophers throughout Europe were eager to make his acquaintance, to be seen publicly with him and to hear his opinions on important topics.

One of the subjects that Franklin spent much time and energy exploring was that of theology….and the conclusions he drew regarding the nature of God and eternity could lead one to ask…

WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN THE FIRST MORMON?

In his recent book “The Faith of Our Fathers,” renowned historian, Alf J. Mapp, Jr., explores the religious beliefs of America’s Founding Fathers. Mapp demonstrates the falsity of the popular myth that America’s Founders were devout orthodox Christians. Most were advocates of Enlightenment philosophy, rejecting many traditional religious notions regarding faith and advocating rational thought, the scientific method and the Natural Rights of the individual. In wrestling with orthodox Christianity and traditional monotheism, many Founding Fathers rejected key Christian doctrines and sought to reconcile ethics, morality and theology with critical rational thought and the science of their day.

Being in the forefront of the American Enlightenment, the teenaged Franklin embraced Atheism. But, as Mapp reports, Franklin later rejected Atheism and constructed a radical theology that will sound familiar to anyone who has studied Mormonism and the later Nauvoo-era theology of Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt.

Regarding Benjamin Franklin’s religious beliefs, Mapp writes:


“That Franklin should have been an adolescent atheist is not surprising. Many precocious youngsters pass through a stage of atheism, sometimes on the way to a satisfying faith. But many people will be surprised to learn that Franklin at the age of twenty-two, after much reading of scientific literature and conversations with London savants declared his belief in a plurality of gods.

“Franklin was so serious in his polytheism that he composed a creed, headed ‘First Principles,’ which he called his ‘little liturgy.’ It was the central constituent of his ‘Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion.’ He sounds like a monotheist when his creed begins with words: ‘I believe thee is one Supreme most perfect Being.’ But the implication changed radically when that Being is identified in the same sentence as ‘Author and Father of the Gods themselves.’
“In words that seem an anticipation of space-age science fiction, Franklin says,

“‘When I stretch my imagination through and beyond our system of planets, beyond the visible fixed stars themselves into that space that is every way infinites, and conceive it filled with suns like ours, each with a chorus of worlds forever moving around him, then this little ball on which we moves seems, even in my narrow imagination, to be almost nothing, and myself less than nothing, and of no sort of consequence.’

“Franklin then envisions a Supreme Being very different from the Christian God whose ‘eye is on the sparrow.’ He says,
“‘..since it is impossible for me to have any positive clear idea of that which is infinite and incomprehensible. I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that he is even INFINITELY ABOVE IT.’
“…Here he introduced a starling idea:

“‘I conceive then that the Infinite has created many Beings or Gods, vastly superior to Men, who can better conceive his perfections than we, and return him a more rational and glorious praise. As among men the praise of the ignorant or of children is not regarded by the ingenious painter or architect, who is rather honored and pleased by the approbation of wise men and artists.

“‘It may be that these created Gods are immortal, or it may be that, after many ages, they are changed, and others supply their places.

‘Howbeit, I conceive that each of these is exceedingly wise, and good, and very powerful; and that each has made for himself one glorious sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable system of planets.

“‘It is that particular wise and good God who is the Author and Owner of our system that I propose for the object of my praise and admiration.’….

“The chief radical element in Franklin’s thought was the supposition that the God who had created our solar system was subordinate to a still greater Deity. The concept of coexistent gods of differing powers was common to many primitive tribes and had even existed in Israel, Greece and Rome in periods of considerable cultural achievements…Nevertheless, the concept of the ruler of our solar system as the creation and servant of a greater God was a strange one indeed to be advanced by an eighteenth-century Anglo-American. Contemporary theologians discussed the possibility of inhabited worlds other than Earth but envisioned them as the work of the same Creator….Though he had proposed that the Supreme God remained aloof from human affairs, he had held that subordinate gods took an active interest in events in their individual worlds…In 1773, when Franklin was sixty-seven years old, he agreed with a Welsh philosopher that there might be a multiplicity of deities in separate spheres.” ( See “The Faith of Our Fathers,” by Alf J. Mapp, Jr., [Rowen & Littlefield Publishers: New York & Oxford, 2003] pp. 22-25, 320 )

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith constructed a theology on the immortality of the human spirit. First he rejected outright the doctrines of Creationism and Annihilation, teaching that all matter was uncreated and eternal. He then reasoned that the human spirit was composed of this uncreated, eternal matter. Since matter could not be created or annihilated, Joseph reasoned that the matter from which the spirit was organized must have existed prior to birth and will continue to exist after death. In this way he reasoned the human spirit or mind was eternal and “co-equal” with God.

Compare this line of reasoning with the following thoughts of Benjamin Franklin regarding the immorality of the human spirit and the nature of God‘s creative acts:


“When I observe that there is great frugality, as well as wisdom, in his works, since he [God] has been evidently sparing of both labor and materials; for by the various wonderful inventions of propagation, he has provided for the continual peopling of his world with plants and animals, without being at the trouble of repeated new creations; and by the natural reduction of compound substances to their original elements, capable of being employed in new compositions, he had prevented the necessity of creating new matter; so that the earth, water, air, and perhaps, fire, which being compounded from wood, do, when the wood is dissolved, return, and again become air, earth, fore and water; I say, that, when I see nothing is annihilated, and not even a drop of water wasted, I cannot suspect the annihilation of souls, or believe, that he will suffer the daily waste of millions of minds ready made that now exist, and put himself in the continual trouble of making new ones. This finding myself to exist in the World, I believe I shall, in some shape or other, always exist.” (“The Faith of Our Fathers,” p.40 )

SO WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN THE WORLD’S FIRST MORMON?

The answer, of course, is no. Did Franklin’s writing on influence Joseph Smith and other early Mormons? There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph or any of the early Mormon theologians were ever familiar with Franklin’s personal theology.

Nevertheless Joseph Smith and the first generation of Mormon leaders and theologians were born and came of age during the period called the American Enlightenment ( 1765-1815)--a period in which American thinking and beliefs were shaped by Benjamin Franklin and other philosophers in his camp. (Indeed, the religious revivals that swept through the region of Palmyra, New York during the 1820’s--and against which Mormonism was originally born as a reaction--were efforts on the part of the established Christian clergy to undercut the ideas and effects of Enlightenment rationalism.)

While other Mormon traditions tend to ignore the role that society had in inspiring Joseph Smith and insist that a supernatural explanation must be given, Reform Mormonism welcomes the study of the culture and society which influenced and inspired Joseph Smith and early Mormons. If it were somehow proven that Joseph Smith had read Franklin’s writings, thought them reasonable and used them as the source of his later ideas and doctrines, Reform Mormons would have no problem with this whatsoever.

The truth of any doctrine or idea is to be found in its relationship to objective existence and to human nature as it is; the value of any doctrine or idea is determined by its potential influence on the Eternal Progression of the individual Therefore Reform Mormons accept all proven truth--regardless of who advocates it.

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT

“All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.”


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.

TO BE INCLUDED IN THE UPCOMING REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY. Email your full name, your email address and your city/state/country of residence to:
reformmormons@aol.com

A REFORM MORMON DIRECTORY

A Reform Mormon Directory is currently being compiled. Anyone who has converted to Reform Mormonism or who simply has an interst in Reform Mormonism is invited to be listed in the directory which will be emailed later this month to those who would like a copy.

Over the past year, Reform Mormons around the world have emailed this blog as well as the Yahoo Reform Mormon Discussion Group and the editor of www.reformmormonism.org requesting information on Reform Mormons living in their areas. It is hoped that this directory--which will be updated periodically--will help Reform Mormons and those will with an interest in Reform Mormonism to conect with one another.

To be included in this directory email the following information to reformmormons@aol.com :

Your Name
Your City/State/Country
Your email address

READERS RESPOND : LOVE CANNOT BE DEMANDED

Regarding the observation made in last weeks lesson that love of God can not be commanded, Troy in Richmond, Virginia, sends us this quote from Viktor Frankl's book, "Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning":

"... they [most religions] often depict ... God as a being who is primarily concerned with being believed in by the greatest possible number of believers, and along the lines of a specific creed. ... not only is this order based on a distortion of any sound concept of deity, but even more importantly it is doomed to failure. There are certain activities that simply cannot be commanded, demanded, or ordered, and as it happens, the triad faith, hope and love belongs to this class of activities. They cannot be established at will."

DOES GOD DEMAND OUR WORSHIP?

The idea that God demands worship is central to nearly every monotheistic religion. In fact, most religious gatherings are referred to as “worship services.” From the majestic organ music and choral accompaniment found in traditional Christian services to modern “Guitar Masses” and Protestant “Praises Services” to the Islamic practice of falling on the ground in the direction of Mecca--the necessity and supposed virtue of worshipping Deity is never questioned by the faithful.


From where did the idea that God demanded human worship come? First we should ask the question, “What exactly is worship?”


The dictionary defines worship as showing “homage or veneration,” as expressing “intense admiration,” to “idolize” someone or something.


Ancient cultures tended to be tribal. Individuals were under subjugation to chiefs, warlords and kings--people who used brute force and strength to establish their dominance. These rulers decided what the laws would be, established taboos based on their own limited knowledge, their beliefs or whims. The will of the ruler was paramount, and those who lived under his absolute rule (who lived “under his protection”) had to continually show deference and respect to avoid being the object of his wrath.


Traditional Western monotheism’s concept of God came from such cultures. For instance, it is obvious from reading Genesis that Abraham is presented as a tribal warlord, along the lines of those one might find in modern day Afghanistan. The Book of Genesis presents Abraham as the leader of an large “household” of slaves and wives, who go to battle with certain kings when they declare war on the cities of Sodom and Gomorah.


Likewise, the Torah depicts Moses enforcing the commandments of God by virtue of the sword and brute force. The Children of Israel who worship the golden calf are put to the sword. A reading of the Torah will show that under Moses the penalty for breaking the commandments regarding observance of the Sabbath, taking the Lord’s name in vain and not honoring one’s father and mother was public execution.


Modern Biblical archeologists are coming to the conclusion that Biblical figures such as King Saul and King David were probably, in fact, warlords over tribes who lived in the Judean hills three thousand years ago.


It is reasonable then that these cultures, which produced the Bible, would envision God as a sort of heavenly warlord; that they would, in fact, refer to God as THE LORD, as one who (like their earthly rulers) demanded that His earthly “subjects” (those who have been brought into subjugation to His power) honor Him with the proper amount of adoration, praise and homage. After all, the Bible itself states that the LORD God “is a jealous God” who blesses only those who properly venerate Him, while destroying those who do not.


Anciently God was envisioned in terms of brute power and might, and this has come down to us in modern times in the act of worship. When modern day Evangelicals sing “Our God is a Mighty God!” they are merely carrying on idea that what born in an age and culture that, were they able to magically visit it for one day, they would probably decry as barbaric.


This barbarism echoes through our TV screens every time a Tele-Evangelist states with a straight face that terrorists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center because God was angry that our society tolerates feminists and homosexuals; that the flooding of New Orleans was God’s retribution against that city for sexual promiscuity; that the Prime Minister of Israel suffered a stroke because his national policies were not in harmony with an ancient text written 2,500 years ago; that God sends fires on the Western United States because a lesbian comedian was chosen to host a TV award show.


Most people of faith probably don’t see a connection to such ridiculous claims and their own traditions of worshipping God, but, in fact, both are rooted in the ancient concept of God as a powerful lord who punishes those subjects who don’t show proper respect and blesses those subjects who do.


What is the Reform Mormon position on worshipping God?


Joseph Smith taught: “While one portion of the human race is judging the other without mercy [because they disagree on the practice of religion], the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole human family with a fatherly care and a parental regard; He views them as his offspring…without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men…” (“Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”)


While envisioning God as a Heavenly Father or Mother, let us ask ourselves what we would make of an earthly father who became angry with his children, punishing them or trying to invoke guilt in them because they failed to praise him enough, failed pay enough attention to him or failed to constantly tell him how grateful they are for all he had done for them? In short what would we think of the earthly father and mother who demanded that their children not only live in a continual state of dependence upon them, but also demanded that their children constantly compliment them and make declarations of how happy they are to be completely dependent upon them?


We would more than likely label such parents as abusive, as “sick” or “twisted,” and in need of therapy. We might encourage the children to severe ties with such immature, emotionally abusive parents.


One could say that to envision a God who demands our adoration and worship is to elevate such a parent to the level of a deity.


Reform Mormonism holds that God does not demand, need or even ask for our worship. Our Heavenly Father and Mother love us, and any love feel toward Them is not given in obedience to a commandment requiring us to love Them. Instead love for God is the natural result of envisioning Gods as having first loved us, as having had our best interests and happiness at heart.


JOIN THE DISCUSSION!

Jump in and join the discussion! If this lesson has triggered some thoughts or insights, if it has provoked questions--share your these by emailing them to us at:

Reformmormons@aol.com.

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

Readers' respond to WHO'S REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ALL?

Brian G. Benington responded to the latest Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine lesson with the following email:


"Thought I'd share this with you -- the response of an atheist friend of mine (James Kramer, III) to your recent Gospel Doctrine topic:

'It is a short step from this to not needing a God at all. If the responsibility and power is in our hands then why bother with God? If you live 'rightly', i.e. abiding by those 'eternal laws set forth in heaven' then one is already acting like God and would not need God's 'grace' anyway...they would have already 'grown up'.

Note: This does not answer or even evoke the question of whether God exists or not. That is a different matter altogether. Rather, even if God exists then worship of him/her is unnecessary. Rather our homage should be to the 'eternal laws' and 'right' that 'even God cannot revoke' or alter and must obey as well.

This was very interesting to read. I am not sure if the author knows all of the implications of what he/she wrote. I do believe I will share it with the very young lady, if she dares, and see if she is able to understand what I was saying to her about 'all-power' and the consequent of man having none when it comes from some other person rather than from the damnable Atheist who was speaking to her.'"

If you would like to respond to the lesson or to the above email, send your thoughts to us at: reformmormons@aol.com. All view points are welcomed!

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