“…faith is not only the principle of action, but of power also, in all intelligent beings, whether in heaven or on earth. Thus says the author of the epistle to the Hebrews 11:3,
‘Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.’
“By this we understand that the principle of power, which existed in the bosom of God, by which the worlds were framed, was faith; and that it is by reason of this principle of power existing in the Deity, that all created things exist - so that all things in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, exist by reason of faith, as it existed in Him. Had it not been for the principle of faith, the worlds would never have been framed, neither would man have been formed of the dust. “ (“Lectures On Faith” 1:13-16)
Mormon scriptures teach that God began the act of creation by looking upon chaotic matter dispersed throughout space and deciding to organize it into new worlds. Within Mormonism, “creation” does not mean to “make out of nothing,” but to take the chaos of nature and organize it in such a way that it is of benefit to intelligent beings.
But to do this, all intelligent beings--Divine or human--must first envision what it is they wish to bring forth.
Proverbs 29: 18 states: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
Without vision--without the capacity to envision what does not yet exist but which can be brought to pass, humanity would indeed perish. Without this one attribute, we would be something less than human; we could not claim to exist in the image of God in any profound or deeply meaningful way.
The capacity for vision allows us to transcend the restraints of time and space, to imagine the consequences of our actions and the possible end results of future endeavors. Faith is the principle behind all human action. Without such vision, faith would have no basis. We could only react to events as they happen. Human striving and creativity would cease.
The need to create is found in every individual and it has always been central to Mormonism. Whereas other religious movements of 19th century America often focused on returning to nature or on withdrawing from the world at large, early Mormons were builders of cities and states. Joseph Smith looked out upon a disease infested Mississippi swamp and envisioned, in its place, the city of Nauvoo. Brigham Young looked out on the deserts of the Great Basin and envisioned a state filled with cities, towns, industries, orchards and farms. The Mormon people were able to see these visions as well, to make these vision their own; these visions served as the basis for a faith inspired the people to action. The course of our nation’s history was changed as a result. A Mississippi swamp became largest city in Illinois, and the deserts of the American west blossomed as the rose.
Vision and faith play important roles in the lives of everyone regardless of age, profession, natural endowment or social standing. A daydreaming child envisions the life she wishes to lead as an adult. The young athlete contemplates his reflection in the mirror and envisions the body and skill he wishes to develop. The artist, composer and writer must envision the works they wish to create before their labor can begin. A business or industry must first be visualized before it can become a reality. A couple must envision the type of life they wish to enjoy together before a commitment to such a life can be made; without a common vision, any future happiness together is in jeopardy.
“Without vision, the people perish,” our humanity is lessened, our potential for growth and progress is undermined. Just as faith precedes all creative action, so vision precedes all faith.
EMULATING GOD’S CREATION
Central to Reform Mormonism is the doctrine that humanity’s purpose is to emulate God. As Joseph Smith taught, “You have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done.” God is envisioned as a “Creator” in that He is the one who, through the knowledge He has acquired through experiencing progression, brings order to chaos. This is the nature of “God’s creation.”
Central to Reform Mormon practice and observance, is the ordinance of the Sacrament. When the bread is broken, the following blessing is given:
“O God the Eternal Father, we ask thee to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of thee, and of the covenant to emulate thy creation. Amen.
Emulating God’s creativity, is central to the human experience. Not only it is the foundation of Eternal Progression, it is essential to human joy and fulfillment during our time on earth. To accomplish this, the capacity for vision (which has historically been central to the Mormon experience) is needed. Faith in needed as well--not faith as in a blind belief or testimony, but faith as a principle of action and power. So it is that Faith is the first principle of Reform Mormonism.
THE COVENANT TO EMULATE GOD’S CREATION
To make a personal covenant to emulate God’s creation, to begin to be creatively engaged in the business of living, to begin meeting the chaos in the world with God-like vision and faith---to make this covenant is in itself to convert to Reform Mormonism.
No one can make this covenant for another. Such a covenant is neither authorized or made official by any authority other than that of an individual’s free will and agency--for nature has not endowed anyone else with the either duty or capability of living life for another. It is not necessary or required that one join any organization, church or sect to make this covenant with God.
Each of us has sole authority over our lives; as regarding our relationship with God, this authority is the Priesthood. We are by nature sons and daughters of God, Priests and Priestesses.
Our conversion is complete when each of us, in whatever way that makes the event relevant, accepts that fact that we exist in the image of God and make a covenant to emulate God’s creation.
REFORM MORMON THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK
How can emulating God’s creative acts, bring a deeper sense of purpose and a sense of personal power to the experience of day to day 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.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
READERS RESPOND: The Triumph of Values Over Morality
Mark Gollaher writes:
"Great lesson Rob. I'm not sure however that I completely agree with the premise that if a being is not created by God but is independent and self existent, that it necessarily follows that God cannot have power over that being or that right and wrong for that being can only be determined subjectively by the being itself independent of the rest of existence.
"I may be co-equal with another man but if he is bigger and stronger or has more social power in the form of others who agree to follow him, he has power over me in many ways and can have a profound effect on my life that I have almost no control over. There is no logic that makes it impossible for God to have power over other beings just because their essential essences were not created by Him.
"The doctrine as I understand it, suggests that although all intelligence was not created by God but is co-equal with Him, God created the path and means for progression, perfection and exaltation and even though the intelligences all took part in the creation process it was through the power of God (Priesthood) and through entering a partnership and agreement with God to abide by the rules that founded the creation of the universe that make participation in that progression possible. Put simply, God created the system, if we want the advantages the system offers, we have to agree to principals or laws that make the system work. Right and wrong are based on those principals, and are more concerned with how we interrelate within the system more than purely how we relate to ourselves independent of the rest of creation. therefore, there can be an objective right and wrong outside of the individual's narrow single-self perspective. Submission to those laws that creation was founded on is necessary to remain part of that creation and especially to partake of all the advantages the system of creation has to offer. This is the way God can have power over us and there can be an objective right and wrong."
Rob writes:
You bring up some great points. Here are some of my thoughts:
The power you seem to be talking about is the power to persuade others and the power of brute force (God can force you to do something by virtue of his being stronger than you.) But I see no evidence in existence that there is a God that operates in this way--unless, like primitive cultures, I think that natural forces (earthquakes, disease, floods, etc.) are the works of God Himself. Of course, I don't think this at all because those type of things seems completely explainable by studying the nature of weather, geology, etc.
You mentioned that God created the path by which we can reach exaltation. While that is certainly the current LDS belief, I can actually find nothing in Joseph Smith's teachings that say that the path to exaltation was original with God. In fact, it seems to me that the opposite is true--because God was once a human and tread the same path we now tread--as did all Gods before Him. The path to reaching exaltation seems to be eternal, uncreated, without beginning and without end.
You mentioned the Priesthood. This is something that I have been contemplating for decades--ever since I converted to the LDS Church as a teen. Since converting to Reform Mormonism several years ago, I've been giving the entire concept of Priesthood further thought--since the Reform Mormon doctrine of Priesthood is so different from the LDS doctrine.
Many aspects of the LDS doctrine of Priesthood don't hold up because of historical facts:there were noArronic and Melchezdek Priesthoods or offices in the first years of the church's existence--and the stories of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John bestowing these Priesthoods upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey prior to the church's organization were invented in the mid-1830's to support the authority of church officers against the charges of apostates. All of the references to these Priesthood in the first third of the revelations now found in "The Doctrine and Covenants" were added after the mid-1830's, in the second printing of the revelations. (If one looks at the original manuscripts of these revelations, or at their first appearance in print--in "The Book of Commandments"--one sees that all verses and references to Priesthood are missing.) The majority of the witnesses of the Golden Plates left the church over the issue of the Priesthood: they knew that earlier revelations were being rewritten to support the doctrine--which they thought Joseph Smith had accepted because of Sydney Rigdon's influence.
That much said, I've given a lot of thought to the concept of Priesthood--since the concepts of authority and of God's power have played such a major part in the development of Mormon theology.
I've come to view the natural order as the Order of the Priesthood. It is by being born into the natural order that our progress is initiated. "The Book of Mormon" talks about Priesthood (in Alma--the only place in the book where a Priesthood Order is discussed) as being without beginning of days or end of years, without a father. Later writings of Joseph talk about nature (the planetary systems, stars, worlds, intelligent life forms) as being eternal and uncreated. In "The Book of Mormon" this eternal, uncreated Priesthood that existed "before the foundation of the world" is called "The Order of the Son of God." LDS and Community of Christ Mormons interpret this name as referring to Jesus Christ.
Reform Mormonism, however, teaches that Priesthood (the power and authority to act in the Name of God, to approach God, to become a God) is inherent in the individual by virtue of their human nature. All humans by nature are "Gods--even Sons of Gods" (to quote a phrase used by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and others).
So I think the title "The Order of the Son of God" refers to the natural order into which we are all born, become living souls (beings of spirit and body) in the literal image of God; by birth we become Sons and Daughters of God. "The Son of God" in the title refers to me, to you, to any human being. (Granted the language is patriarchal, harkening as it does to Biblical imagery. To be inclusive in my imagery, I would called the Priesthood "The Order of the Child of God"--the Child be any man or woman born.)
As a Reform Mormon, I reject outright the entire concept of "creation" and "creationism." This is the most radical doctrine that Joseph Smith taught--and one that divided the Mormon leadership of his time into two warring camps, just as assuredly as did his teachings on polygamy. The doctrine of God as the creator is the basis of all monotheistic religions; it established the Primacy of Consciousness (God's Consciousness) over the Primacy of Existence.
In the last months of his life, Joseph established the Primacy of Existence as the foundation of his theology. Since the Primacy of Existence is also the foundation of scientific methodology, of rationalism, of humanism and of secularism, Joseph Smith's later theology was brought into line with these things. Because of this, Brigham Young, a decade later, could boast that ALL truth--be it religious, philosophic, artistic or scientific--were part of Mormonism.
Earlier in his career, Joseph Smith had also defined truth as "a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be." In other words, a knowledge concerning the nature of what actually exists is how Truth would defined.
It is the reality of existence that serves as the basis of morality. The one thing that all intelligent living things share is a tendency to value their own existence. The value of life is the basis for human ethics.
This seems to be in keeping with the Mormon interpretation of the Garden of Eden story: when humanity's eyes were opened and they realized that they were subject to death, life took on meaning and they began to think conceptually in terms of good and evil; they realized that they had to take actions in order to sustain their own lives ("by the sweat of your brow" you will work to raise food); they became morally responsible; they became Free Agents.
Throughout Mormon scriptures (particularly in the Bible), when the concept of ethics is reduced to its most basic premise, it is by contrasting the concepts of life and death. "Choose life"...."I put before you the choice of life and death"..."therefore chose life."....these phrases are found in the Old Testament. And in the New Testament, Christ says he has come to bring "Life" and to bring it more "abundantly." Human life is both the foundation and reward for ethical behavior.
Since life is universal to all living things, many of the most important concepts of right and wrong are universal and objective; they can be understood by an appeal to reason and with reference to nature--without having to resort to faith or doctrinal speculations about the Divine. In this way, both the believer and the atheist can embrace and abide by the same general code of ethics.
Traditions. mores and "commandments" (such as keeping the Sabbath, having no other Gods before the God of Israel, etc.) lack an ethical component for anyone other than those who believe in a particular religion. Even those believers would probably concede that while they would certainly think one should be jailed or punished for theft or murder, they would not jail or punish someone for breaking the Sabbath or embracing a religion which worships a God other than theirs. They may think these things are unethical or immoral, but they recognize a difference in this type of "immorality" as opposed to that of actions which physical harm people or endanger human life. In recognizing this difference, even someone of a Fundamentalist bent is acknowledging that the value of human life is the foundation for their morality.
So responsibility for discovering what is ethical seems to be completely in the hands of the individual.
There's also Joseph's summation of the purpose of human life: "And you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you, by going from a small degree to a greater..." etc., etc. To my mind this seems to indicate that one's ethical sense is developed in degrees through the choosing of values, through acting on those values, through suffering the consequences of those actions, etc. This seems to put the work of "achieving exaltation" squarely in the hands of the individual. Joseph also taught "Knowledge is what saves a man"--which, of course, is very different than saying "God saves a man."
Mark Gollaher responds:
You bring up some great points too. I tend to agree with the idea that God would not result to brute force to control but I think many (maybe most) people believe God would do just that: use brute force in righteous anger if there were anyone who could threaten "the plan." In fact, that is many people's idea of the last stand off of Armageddon--God finally using brute force to conquer Satan and the wicked to bring about the millennium.
In another view, Whether the being we worship as our "Father in Heaven" is the author of it or not, in agreeing to participate in the system of the path of exaltation, we submit to the laws that govern and create that system part of which would include consequences for righteous and unrighteous actions. Since we attribute the laws of the system as "God's will" because as an exalted being Himself, His will is in perfect harmony with those laws, we are in effect under his power with respect to our mortal bodies at least. This suggests that mortal life or the holding together of our spirit and temporal selves is dependant on God. So even if our spirits are co-equal with God, life as we experience here (according to the doctrine) would be completely due to His mercy. All of this creates a right and wrong beyond individual desires because anytime you are participating in an organized system, there are actions witch are in harmony with the rest of the system and actions which are not. As a kind of short-hand I suppose, the laws of the system are called God's will because it is through revelation fro Him that we come to an understanding of those laws.
All of this I recognize is dependant on whether you believe completely that God reveals his will or these laws of right and wrong through someone other than yourself--like a prophet which is something I personally have a difficult time with. In the end, even if all this doctrinal analysis is correct, I trust my own personal feelings and "revelations" from God more than I do those of any other regardless of their status or calling. So I end up being in agreement with the idea that the individual is the only person who ultimately can determine what is right and wrong for them. I guess we have churches and religious leaders because so often it seems people are making decisions based not on what they feel is truly right or wrong for the long term and the whole, but for personal gratification and power in the short term.
"Great lesson Rob. I'm not sure however that I completely agree with the premise that if a being is not created by God but is independent and self existent, that it necessarily follows that God cannot have power over that being or that right and wrong for that being can only be determined subjectively by the being itself independent of the rest of existence.
"I may be co-equal with another man but if he is bigger and stronger or has more social power in the form of others who agree to follow him, he has power over me in many ways and can have a profound effect on my life that I have almost no control over. There is no logic that makes it impossible for God to have power over other beings just because their essential essences were not created by Him.
"The doctrine as I understand it, suggests that although all intelligence was not created by God but is co-equal with Him, God created the path and means for progression, perfection and exaltation and even though the intelligences all took part in the creation process it was through the power of God (Priesthood) and through entering a partnership and agreement with God to abide by the rules that founded the creation of the universe that make participation in that progression possible. Put simply, God created the system, if we want the advantages the system offers, we have to agree to principals or laws that make the system work. Right and wrong are based on those principals, and are more concerned with how we interrelate within the system more than purely how we relate to ourselves independent of the rest of creation. therefore, there can be an objective right and wrong outside of the individual's narrow single-self perspective. Submission to those laws that creation was founded on is necessary to remain part of that creation and especially to partake of all the advantages the system of creation has to offer. This is the way God can have power over us and there can be an objective right and wrong."
Rob writes:
You bring up some great points. Here are some of my thoughts:
The power you seem to be talking about is the power to persuade others and the power of brute force (God can force you to do something by virtue of his being stronger than you.) But I see no evidence in existence that there is a God that operates in this way--unless, like primitive cultures, I think that natural forces (earthquakes, disease, floods, etc.) are the works of God Himself. Of course, I don't think this at all because those type of things seems completely explainable by studying the nature of weather, geology, etc.
You mentioned that God created the path by which we can reach exaltation. While that is certainly the current LDS belief, I can actually find nothing in Joseph Smith's teachings that say that the path to exaltation was original with God. In fact, it seems to me that the opposite is true--because God was once a human and tread the same path we now tread--as did all Gods before Him. The path to reaching exaltation seems to be eternal, uncreated, without beginning and without end.
You mentioned the Priesthood. This is something that I have been contemplating for decades--ever since I converted to the LDS Church as a teen. Since converting to Reform Mormonism several years ago, I've been giving the entire concept of Priesthood further thought--since the Reform Mormon doctrine of Priesthood is so different from the LDS doctrine.
Many aspects of the LDS doctrine of Priesthood don't hold up because of historical facts:there were noArronic and Melchezdek Priesthoods or offices in the first years of the church's existence--and the stories of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John bestowing these Priesthoods upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey prior to the church's organization were invented in the mid-1830's to support the authority of church officers against the charges of apostates. All of the references to these Priesthood in the first third of the revelations now found in "The Doctrine and Covenants" were added after the mid-1830's, in the second printing of the revelations. (If one looks at the original manuscripts of these revelations, or at their first appearance in print--in "The Book of Commandments"--one sees that all verses and references to Priesthood are missing.) The majority of the witnesses of the Golden Plates left the church over the issue of the Priesthood: they knew that earlier revelations were being rewritten to support the doctrine--which they thought Joseph Smith had accepted because of Sydney Rigdon's influence.
That much said, I've given a lot of thought to the concept of Priesthood--since the concepts of authority and of God's power have played such a major part in the development of Mormon theology.
I've come to view the natural order as the Order of the Priesthood. It is by being born into the natural order that our progress is initiated. "The Book of Mormon" talks about Priesthood (in Alma--the only place in the book where a Priesthood Order is discussed) as being without beginning of days or end of years, without a father. Later writings of Joseph talk about nature (the planetary systems, stars, worlds, intelligent life forms) as being eternal and uncreated. In "The Book of Mormon" this eternal, uncreated Priesthood that existed "before the foundation of the world" is called "The Order of the Son of God." LDS and Community of Christ Mormons interpret this name as referring to Jesus Christ.
Reform Mormonism, however, teaches that Priesthood (the power and authority to act in the Name of God, to approach God, to become a God) is inherent in the individual by virtue of their human nature. All humans by nature are "Gods--even Sons of Gods" (to quote a phrase used by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and others).
So I think the title "The Order of the Son of God" refers to the natural order into which we are all born, become living souls (beings of spirit and body) in the literal image of God; by birth we become Sons and Daughters of God. "The Son of God" in the title refers to me, to you, to any human being. (Granted the language is patriarchal, harkening as it does to Biblical imagery. To be inclusive in my imagery, I would called the Priesthood "The Order of the Child of God"--the Child be any man or woman born.)
As a Reform Mormon, I reject outright the entire concept of "creation" and "creationism." This is the most radical doctrine that Joseph Smith taught--and one that divided the Mormon leadership of his time into two warring camps, just as assuredly as did his teachings on polygamy. The doctrine of God as the creator is the basis of all monotheistic religions; it established the Primacy of Consciousness (God's Consciousness) over the Primacy of Existence.
In the last months of his life, Joseph established the Primacy of Existence as the foundation of his theology. Since the Primacy of Existence is also the foundation of scientific methodology, of rationalism, of humanism and of secularism, Joseph Smith's later theology was brought into line with these things. Because of this, Brigham Young, a decade later, could boast that ALL truth--be it religious, philosophic, artistic or scientific--were part of Mormonism.
Earlier in his career, Joseph Smith had also defined truth as "a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be." In other words, a knowledge concerning the nature of what actually exists is how Truth would defined.
It is the reality of existence that serves as the basis of morality. The one thing that all intelligent living things share is a tendency to value their own existence. The value of life is the basis for human ethics.
This seems to be in keeping with the Mormon interpretation of the Garden of Eden story: when humanity's eyes were opened and they realized that they were subject to death, life took on meaning and they began to think conceptually in terms of good and evil; they realized that they had to take actions in order to sustain their own lives ("by the sweat of your brow" you will work to raise food); they became morally responsible; they became Free Agents.
Throughout Mormon scriptures (particularly in the Bible), when the concept of ethics is reduced to its most basic premise, it is by contrasting the concepts of life and death. "Choose life"...."I put before you the choice of life and death"..."therefore chose life."....these phrases are found in the Old Testament. And in the New Testament, Christ says he has come to bring "Life" and to bring it more "abundantly." Human life is both the foundation and reward for ethical behavior.
Since life is universal to all living things, many of the most important concepts of right and wrong are universal and objective; they can be understood by an appeal to reason and with reference to nature--without having to resort to faith or doctrinal speculations about the Divine. In this way, both the believer and the atheist can embrace and abide by the same general code of ethics.
Traditions. mores and "commandments" (such as keeping the Sabbath, having no other Gods before the God of Israel, etc.) lack an ethical component for anyone other than those who believe in a particular religion. Even those believers would probably concede that while they would certainly think one should be jailed or punished for theft or murder, they would not jail or punish someone for breaking the Sabbath or embracing a religion which worships a God other than theirs. They may think these things are unethical or immoral, but they recognize a difference in this type of "immorality" as opposed to that of actions which physical harm people or endanger human life. In recognizing this difference, even someone of a Fundamentalist bent is acknowledging that the value of human life is the foundation for their morality.
So responsibility for discovering what is ethical seems to be completely in the hands of the individual.
There's also Joseph's summation of the purpose of human life: "And you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you, by going from a small degree to a greater..." etc., etc. To my mind this seems to indicate that one's ethical sense is developed in degrees through the choosing of values, through acting on those values, through suffering the consequences of those actions, etc. This seems to put the work of "achieving exaltation" squarely in the hands of the individual. Joseph also taught "Knowledge is what saves a man"--which, of course, is very different than saying "God saves a man."
Mark Gollaher responds:
You bring up some great points too. I tend to agree with the idea that God would not result to brute force to control but I think many (maybe most) people believe God would do just that: use brute force in righteous anger if there were anyone who could threaten "the plan." In fact, that is many people's idea of the last stand off of Armageddon--God finally using brute force to conquer Satan and the wicked to bring about the millennium.
In another view, Whether the being we worship as our "Father in Heaven" is the author of it or not, in agreeing to participate in the system of the path of exaltation, we submit to the laws that govern and create that system part of which would include consequences for righteous and unrighteous actions. Since we attribute the laws of the system as "God's will" because as an exalted being Himself, His will is in perfect harmony with those laws, we are in effect under his power with respect to our mortal bodies at least. This suggests that mortal life or the holding together of our spirit and temporal selves is dependant on God. So even if our spirits are co-equal with God, life as we experience here (according to the doctrine) would be completely due to His mercy. All of this creates a right and wrong beyond individual desires because anytime you are participating in an organized system, there are actions witch are in harmony with the rest of the system and actions which are not. As a kind of short-hand I suppose, the laws of the system are called God's will because it is through revelation fro Him that we come to an understanding of those laws.
All of this I recognize is dependant on whether you believe completely that God reveals his will or these laws of right and wrong through someone other than yourself--like a prophet which is something I personally have a difficult time with. In the end, even if all this doctrinal analysis is correct, I trust my own personal feelings and "revelations" from God more than I do those of any other regardless of their status or calling. So I end up being in agreement with the idea that the individual is the only person who ultimately can determine what is right and wrong for them. I guess we have churches and religious leaders because so often it seems people are making decisions based not on what they feel is truly right or wrong for the long term and the whole, but for personal gratification and power in the short term.
Friday, April 21, 2006
THE TRIUMPH OF VALUES OVER MORALITY
One of the tenants of Reform Mormon is that God does not demand obedience. I resisted this concept when I first heard it; it seemed to undermine the concept that some ethics are universal. But after more than a year of reflecting on this concept in light of the Mormon Paradigm, I began to see that this wasn’t the case at all. Because humans share a common nature, there will always be some concepts of right and wrong that are universal.
A lot is said these days (especially in politics) about values, and much is said in traditional religion regarding morality.
Morality comes from the same root word as “mores,” which means “customs” or “traditions.” Usually concepts of good and evil, right and wrong are passed on through traditions and customs; to break with traditions is often regarded as wrong and immoral--even though reason and reality may seem to indicate otherwise.
For instance, in the South, racial segregation was once seen as moral, as good. Though the racism that served as the philosophic foundation for such practices could in no way be reconciled with the philosophic basis of Americanism (the conviction that all human beings are by nature equal), millions of Americans believed that “the mingling of the races” was immoral. The mores of a particular region of the country--the traditions of that region--were mistaken for ethics.
Likewise within LDS Mormonism, the doctrinal prohibition against “anyone with one drop of Negro blood” being ordained to the Priesthood continued until 1978 and was defended as a “righteous” and “true” doctrine, even though it was the product of a pro-slavery, pre-Civil War theology that had been embraced by many American in the 1850’s--and even though most LDS Mormons were unable to reconcile this doctrine with other Mormon doctrines regarding the individual, free agency and a just, loving God. Even today--nearly 30 years after the change in LDS Church doctrine and practice--many LDS Mormons, because they insist on upholding the infallibility of the Church and its leaders, have to engage in compartmentalized thinking and context-dropping rational gymnastics in order to justify the past racism of their church. This type of thing is not peculiar to Latter-day Saint, but can be found wherever concepts of right and wrong are wed to social and cultural mores--particularly religious societies and cultures.
The tendency is to become comfortable with the traditions and mores of the culture into which one is born and in which one is reared. When these traditions are challenged, the discomfort and, to some degree, the fear that one might feels can be seen as righteous indignation; we often assume that righteousness itself is being challenged, and that those challenging the status quo are unethical.
With the Enlightenment, the natural rights and liberty of the individual became the basis for not only what was legal, but also what was ethical. Enlightenment philosophers (among whom were many of the US Founding Fathers) also considered themselves moral philosophers; they were trying to establish a rational approach to ethics--o concepts of right and wrong--that was based firmly upon the facts regarding the natural world.
With the concept of the natural rights of the individual as the basis for ethics, the concept of an ethical code based on commandments, on Divine will, on traditions, or one the consensus of the majority began to unravel. Whereas for thousands of years a thing was wrong simply because “God said so,” now it might be permissible if “no one was being hurt,” if “no one’s rights were being violated.” If an individual’s actions were not hurting and endangering anyone else, then that individual should be left alone to pursue their values--even if those values flew in the face of tradition or the faith-based convictions of others. This idea became the basis of not only religious freedom, but individual liberty itself; it became the basis for determining what was ethical and what was unethical.
In short, values triumphed over morality.
My commitment to Mormonism was cemented when I realized that Joseph Smith’s most radical and “Un-Christian” doctrines and speculations were actually attempts to rethink traditional notions of God and Divinity in light of modern secular philosophy. In short, it seemed to me that Joseph was doing with theology what Enlightenment philosophers had done with ethics--that is, bring it in harmony with the facts regarding human nature and the world in which humanity exists; to bring religious notions in harmony with rational thought, so that knowledge could triumph over blind faith and superstition. (In many of his discourses during the last year of his life, Joseph Smith spoke out against “superstitions”--which reveals a lot about his own personal progression since he had begun his career as a village Seer and peep-stone magician. Where as in his youth, he indulged in superstition, by middle-age, he had come to see his mission as “putting down superstition.”)
What follows is an extract from the 1986 book “The Trial of Faith: Discussions Concerning Mormonism & Neo-Mormonism” by William Call. The subject is that of values and free agency. Call’s views reflect many of my own as a Reform Mormon. In his brief introduction on his book’s title page, the author writes that “given the pluralistic doctrines of its prophet-founder, Joseph Smith, the only was to perpetuate the true, revolutionary significance of Mormonism is through the ideological triumph of man over God.”
WHO DETERMINES VALUES?
“What do we mean by the word value?…Who determines what is to be valued?….
“What we like and dislike, and what we think is important and don’t think important, is value. Our values are those things, or ideas and concepts, that we think are important or significant to us. Some people value one thing, and some value other things….
“Now let’s think about whose prerogative it is to decide what we should value. We, the Mormons, say that in the beginning man was not created but that he has always existed. [See“ The Doctrine & Covenants” Section 93]…
“Since God did not create and cannot create man, because natural things exist without having been created by God, I now ask you a very important question. Is God omnipotent? Or to reword the question, does God have all power? Well, if natural things exist independently of God, and if the spirit, mind or intelligence of man exists independently of God, then can God be all-powerful? Is there any power that exists that God does not control? The answer to that question is yes; we see that natural things have power that God does not control; we also see that man exists without God causing him to exist and that, therefore, there are sources of power that exist in the universe that are independent of God’s power.
“Now let’s ask another question: is God the supreme intelligence? Joseph Smith had something to say about that. In the Book of Abraham he said, “If two things exist and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them.” (Abraham 3:16) And in another place he said:
‘…Intelligences exist one above another so that there is no end to them.’ (Discourse concerning the plurality of Gods.)
“
….So is God the supreme intelligence? Is he the wisest of all? According to the Prophet Joseph, he is not necessarily the wisest or the supreme intelligence….Could there be a higher God than our God? “God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a Man like until one of our ourselves--that is the great secret!” (The King Follett Discourse.) So the Prophet says.
“….Hence, finally, the answer to our previous question concerning who determines what men should value. Because God is not all-powerful, and because he is not necessarily the supreme intelligence, he cannot determine what we should value. Instead, because man exists independently of God, man must determine for himself would he should value….
“…finally we get to the subject of free agency. Because we have discovered that, according to Mormon doctrine, men must determine value for themselves, it is possible for us to think of the concept of free agency in a way we have not thought of it before. Free agency, as we normally think of it, is the choice between right and wrong. Now I am going to explain why that is not the true definition of free agency. First, let me say that the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent God and free agency is impossible…I’m going to tell you why. Free agency is not simply the choice between right and wrong, because the principle itself assumes that what is right and what is wrong has not already been determined. Further, as we have seen, because God is not omnipotent he cannot determine what men should value. Therefore, no individual intelligence, not even God, can tell us what is right and what is wrong. If God were to dictate to us what is right and wrong, there could be no choice but to accept what he says or to suffer the consequences. And, indeed, if he were omnipotent, he, of necessity, would have to determine what should be valued; otherwise, he would not be omnipotent….
“…my Brothers and Sisters, I am here today to tell you that the mere choice between right and wrong, when right and wrong has already been determined, is not what free agency is. Free agency is, instead, the ability of the individual to determine for himself what his values are….Free agency is inherent in the individual. It is inherent in the fact that man was not created but that, instead, has always existed. God is not all-powerful. He did not create nature, and he did not create man, and therefore, he cannot control them. Free agency is not given, but is inherent, and consequently, it cannot be taken away. Neither God nor anyone else has that power.
“The [LDS] Church is a very unique church. It alone of all the churches proclaims the true principles upon which the concept of free agency is founded. There is not another church that does this. And why is this so? Because of all the churches only the [LDS] Church declares that the individual is a divine, self-existing being. Only to the Mormon is the individual co-equal with God, and consequently, only to the Mormon are man’s values respected just as much as God’s values.
“Now the difficulty is that the General Authorities of the [LDS] Church do not make this basic doctrine clear. They leave the question of God’s omnipotence ambiguously unanswered. They do that because if Mormonism is to retain the basis for its doctrine of free agency, it must declare that God in not omnipotent. However, if [the LDS Church] is to retain its doctrines concerning the commandments of God, of priesthood authority and of centralized ecclesiastical power, it must teach that God is omnipotent. Not wanting to give up either of these basic characteristics of [LDS] Mormonism, the leaders of the [LDS] Church, including the Prophet himself, keep quiet on the subject. However, because the finite nature of God is an essential teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and because the [LDS] Church regards his teachings as providential, then it must follow that no individual on earth, or for that matter in heaven, has the power or the right to determine for another what is best for him. So it doesn’t matter whether it is a member of the First Presidency of the [LDS] Church, the Quorum of the Twelve, the First Quorum of the Seventy, or the stake president, the bishop, the quorum leader of even a father in the home--none of these has the right to determine for another what course he should take. But when [Church or Priesthood authorities] regard their word as anything other than just advice, that is, when they regard their word as coming from an omnipotent God and, therefore, as binding in any way on another individual, they are clearly overstepping their bounds.
“Exaltation is nothing more than the individual achieving what is best for him. Consequently, the individual is not first accountable to God or to the Church but is first accountable to himself. No one other than himself can determine what is best for him, and for this reason, he alone is responsible for his actions and his decisions. With free agency comes accountability, and with accountability comes responsibility.
“Thus, we see that despite some basic contradictions there is a basis for the greatness of Mormon doctrine. Joseph Smith, the Prophet, happened to be a very great man. He understood the principle of free agency very well, and he happened to have the courage to proclaim the doctrines associated with that principle, even under the most adverse of circumstances. He was willing to put his life in the line to say what he realized was of ultimate value for mankind. Unfortunately we as members of the [LDS] Church do not often think about these things, and very few of us really understand them. We go to church year after year and say the same things over and over, and we really do not understand the basis of what the Church is all about….My hope is that we might understand it sufficiently that it will affect our lives in a positive way.”
( William Call, “The Trial of Faith: Discussion Concerning Mormonism & Neo-Mormonism.” 1986, pp.204--208)
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.
A lot is said these days (especially in politics) about values, and much is said in traditional religion regarding morality.
Morality comes from the same root word as “mores,” which means “customs” or “traditions.” Usually concepts of good and evil, right and wrong are passed on through traditions and customs; to break with traditions is often regarded as wrong and immoral--even though reason and reality may seem to indicate otherwise.
For instance, in the South, racial segregation was once seen as moral, as good. Though the racism that served as the philosophic foundation for such practices could in no way be reconciled with the philosophic basis of Americanism (the conviction that all human beings are by nature equal), millions of Americans believed that “the mingling of the races” was immoral. The mores of a particular region of the country--the traditions of that region--were mistaken for ethics.
Likewise within LDS Mormonism, the doctrinal prohibition against “anyone with one drop of Negro blood” being ordained to the Priesthood continued until 1978 and was defended as a “righteous” and “true” doctrine, even though it was the product of a pro-slavery, pre-Civil War theology that had been embraced by many American in the 1850’s--and even though most LDS Mormons were unable to reconcile this doctrine with other Mormon doctrines regarding the individual, free agency and a just, loving God. Even today--nearly 30 years after the change in LDS Church doctrine and practice--many LDS Mormons, because they insist on upholding the infallibility of the Church and its leaders, have to engage in compartmentalized thinking and context-dropping rational gymnastics in order to justify the past racism of their church. This type of thing is not peculiar to Latter-day Saint, but can be found wherever concepts of right and wrong are wed to social and cultural mores--particularly religious societies and cultures.
The tendency is to become comfortable with the traditions and mores of the culture into which one is born and in which one is reared. When these traditions are challenged, the discomfort and, to some degree, the fear that one might feels can be seen as righteous indignation; we often assume that righteousness itself is being challenged, and that those challenging the status quo are unethical.
With the Enlightenment, the natural rights and liberty of the individual became the basis for not only what was legal, but also what was ethical. Enlightenment philosophers (among whom were many of the US Founding Fathers) also considered themselves moral philosophers; they were trying to establish a rational approach to ethics--o concepts of right and wrong--that was based firmly upon the facts regarding the natural world.
With the concept of the natural rights of the individual as the basis for ethics, the concept of an ethical code based on commandments, on Divine will, on traditions, or one the consensus of the majority began to unravel. Whereas for thousands of years a thing was wrong simply because “God said so,” now it might be permissible if “no one was being hurt,” if “no one’s rights were being violated.” If an individual’s actions were not hurting and endangering anyone else, then that individual should be left alone to pursue their values--even if those values flew in the face of tradition or the faith-based convictions of others. This idea became the basis of not only religious freedom, but individual liberty itself; it became the basis for determining what was ethical and what was unethical.
In short, values triumphed over morality.
My commitment to Mormonism was cemented when I realized that Joseph Smith’s most radical and “Un-Christian” doctrines and speculations were actually attempts to rethink traditional notions of God and Divinity in light of modern secular philosophy. In short, it seemed to me that Joseph was doing with theology what Enlightenment philosophers had done with ethics--that is, bring it in harmony with the facts regarding human nature and the world in which humanity exists; to bring religious notions in harmony with rational thought, so that knowledge could triumph over blind faith and superstition. (In many of his discourses during the last year of his life, Joseph Smith spoke out against “superstitions”--which reveals a lot about his own personal progression since he had begun his career as a village Seer and peep-stone magician. Where as in his youth, he indulged in superstition, by middle-age, he had come to see his mission as “putting down superstition.”)
What follows is an extract from the 1986 book “The Trial of Faith: Discussions Concerning Mormonism & Neo-Mormonism” by William Call. The subject is that of values and free agency. Call’s views reflect many of my own as a Reform Mormon. In his brief introduction on his book’s title page, the author writes that “given the pluralistic doctrines of its prophet-founder, Joseph Smith, the only was to perpetuate the true, revolutionary significance of Mormonism is through the ideological triumph of man over God.”
WHO DETERMINES VALUES?
“What do we mean by the word value?…Who determines what is to be valued?….
“What we like and dislike, and what we think is important and don’t think important, is value. Our values are those things, or ideas and concepts, that we think are important or significant to us. Some people value one thing, and some value other things….
“Now let’s think about whose prerogative it is to decide what we should value. We, the Mormons, say that in the beginning man was not created but that he has always existed. [See“ The Doctrine & Covenants” Section 93]…
“Since God did not create and cannot create man, because natural things exist without having been created by God, I now ask you a very important question. Is God omnipotent? Or to reword the question, does God have all power? Well, if natural things exist independently of God, and if the spirit, mind or intelligence of man exists independently of God, then can God be all-powerful? Is there any power that exists that God does not control? The answer to that question is yes; we see that natural things have power that God does not control; we also see that man exists without God causing him to exist and that, therefore, there are sources of power that exist in the universe that are independent of God’s power.
“Now let’s ask another question: is God the supreme intelligence? Joseph Smith had something to say about that. In the Book of Abraham he said, “If two things exist and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them.” (Abraham 3:16) And in another place he said:
‘…Intelligences exist one above another so that there is no end to them.’ (Discourse concerning the plurality of Gods.)
“
….So is God the supreme intelligence? Is he the wisest of all? According to the Prophet Joseph, he is not necessarily the wisest or the supreme intelligence….Could there be a higher God than our God? “God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a Man like until one of our ourselves--that is the great secret!” (The King Follett Discourse.) So the Prophet says.
“….Hence, finally, the answer to our previous question concerning who determines what men should value. Because God is not all-powerful, and because he is not necessarily the supreme intelligence, he cannot determine what we should value. Instead, because man exists independently of God, man must determine for himself would he should value….
“…finally we get to the subject of free agency. Because we have discovered that, according to Mormon doctrine, men must determine value for themselves, it is possible for us to think of the concept of free agency in a way we have not thought of it before. Free agency, as we normally think of it, is the choice between right and wrong. Now I am going to explain why that is not the true definition of free agency. First, let me say that the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent God and free agency is impossible…I’m going to tell you why. Free agency is not simply the choice between right and wrong, because the principle itself assumes that what is right and what is wrong has not already been determined. Further, as we have seen, because God is not omnipotent he cannot determine what men should value. Therefore, no individual intelligence, not even God, can tell us what is right and what is wrong. If God were to dictate to us what is right and wrong, there could be no choice but to accept what he says or to suffer the consequences. And, indeed, if he were omnipotent, he, of necessity, would have to determine what should be valued; otherwise, he would not be omnipotent….
“…my Brothers and Sisters, I am here today to tell you that the mere choice between right and wrong, when right and wrong has already been determined, is not what free agency is. Free agency is, instead, the ability of the individual to determine for himself what his values are….Free agency is inherent in the individual. It is inherent in the fact that man was not created but that, instead, has always existed. God is not all-powerful. He did not create nature, and he did not create man, and therefore, he cannot control them. Free agency is not given, but is inherent, and consequently, it cannot be taken away. Neither God nor anyone else has that power.
“The [LDS] Church is a very unique church. It alone of all the churches proclaims the true principles upon which the concept of free agency is founded. There is not another church that does this. And why is this so? Because of all the churches only the [LDS] Church declares that the individual is a divine, self-existing being. Only to the Mormon is the individual co-equal with God, and consequently, only to the Mormon are man’s values respected just as much as God’s values.
“Now the difficulty is that the General Authorities of the [LDS] Church do not make this basic doctrine clear. They leave the question of God’s omnipotence ambiguously unanswered. They do that because if Mormonism is to retain the basis for its doctrine of free agency, it must declare that God in not omnipotent. However, if [the LDS Church] is to retain its doctrines concerning the commandments of God, of priesthood authority and of centralized ecclesiastical power, it must teach that God is omnipotent. Not wanting to give up either of these basic characteristics of [LDS] Mormonism, the leaders of the [LDS] Church, including the Prophet himself, keep quiet on the subject. However, because the finite nature of God is an essential teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and because the [LDS] Church regards his teachings as providential, then it must follow that no individual on earth, or for that matter in heaven, has the power or the right to determine for another what is best for him. So it doesn’t matter whether it is a member of the First Presidency of the [LDS] Church, the Quorum of the Twelve, the First Quorum of the Seventy, or the stake president, the bishop, the quorum leader of even a father in the home--none of these has the right to determine for another what course he should take. But when [Church or Priesthood authorities] regard their word as anything other than just advice, that is, when they regard their word as coming from an omnipotent God and, therefore, as binding in any way on another individual, they are clearly overstepping their bounds.
“Exaltation is nothing more than the individual achieving what is best for him. Consequently, the individual is not first accountable to God or to the Church but is first accountable to himself. No one other than himself can determine what is best for him, and for this reason, he alone is responsible for his actions and his decisions. With free agency comes accountability, and with accountability comes responsibility.
“Thus, we see that despite some basic contradictions there is a basis for the greatness of Mormon doctrine. Joseph Smith, the Prophet, happened to be a very great man. He understood the principle of free agency very well, and he happened to have the courage to proclaim the doctrines associated with that principle, even under the most adverse of circumstances. He was willing to put his life in the line to say what he realized was of ultimate value for mankind. Unfortunately we as members of the [LDS] Church do not often think about these things, and very few of us really understand them. We go to church year after year and say the same things over and over, and we really do not understand the basis of what the Church is all about….My hope is that we might understand it sufficiently that it will affect our lives in a positive way.”
( William Call, “The Trial of Faith: Discussion Concerning Mormonism & Neo-Mormonism.” 1986, pp.204--208)
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.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
READERS RESPOND: The Hope of a Resurrection
Nick writes:
"If the potential of the DIVINE is without end, shouldn´t we accept then at least the theoretical possibility of Jesus having risen physically from the dead? Even in a manner comparable to scenes in horror movies? Why not, I say. But that kind of `belief in the Resurrection´ is rather different from the intellectually dishonest neglect to all the evidence against it. (Above all, we don´t have any original Gospel text; in the case of `Mark´ and `Matthew´ we don´t even know the author; we don´t know the many possible alterations of the basic text during centuries when the Gospels were copied by hand; last but not least there is the inherent improbability of such a paranormal event.) Notwithstanding, today there is much more to speculate about the posssibility of physical resurrection than ever before. Who could tell if we won´t be `resurrected´ in a parallel universe immediately after we close our eyes here? And what about the limited time span of a human´s life on earth in a uni- (or multiverse) where time can go both forwards and backwards? Finiteness is the illusion, not INFINITY."
Rob writes:
"According to the Mormon Paradigm, Nature or Existence is primary, is on-going and eternal, and all things--living and non-living, divine or human--exist within the confines of nature. According to the speculation of early Mormon theologians/philosophers Orson Pratt's and Parley P. Pratt, to exist is to have a nature, and thus limits. The endless potential of the Divine is no from that of humans, and it has to do with the limitless ability to comprehend existence itself.
Of course, the validity one gives any sort of sepculation will be determined by the vailidity one gives to human consciousness. Can humans grasp through their natural senses information about the nature of the universe, and can they by virtue of their rational minds understand the nature of the universe. If one discounts the abiility of humanity to comprehend existence by virtue of their senses, then one's speculations needn't be rooted in the natural world or existence; one accepts the primacy of consciousness, where flights of fancy can be regarded as being just as reliable as any theory science might produce. But if one accepts the primacy of existnce or nature over consciousness, then one will demand actual proof from nature for theories and speculations. In the end, everything comes down to epistemology."
"If the potential of the DIVINE is without end, shouldn´t we accept then at least the theoretical possibility of Jesus having risen physically from the dead? Even in a manner comparable to scenes in horror movies? Why not, I say. But that kind of `belief in the Resurrection´ is rather different from the intellectually dishonest neglect to all the evidence against it. (Above all, we don´t have any original Gospel text; in the case of `Mark´ and `Matthew´ we don´t even know the author; we don´t know the many possible alterations of the basic text during centuries when the Gospels were copied by hand; last but not least there is the inherent improbability of such a paranormal event.) Notwithstanding, today there is much more to speculate about the posssibility of physical resurrection than ever before. Who could tell if we won´t be `resurrected´ in a parallel universe immediately after we close our eyes here? And what about the limited time span of a human´s life on earth in a uni- (or multiverse) where time can go both forwards and backwards? Finiteness is the illusion, not INFINITY."
Rob writes:
"According to the Mormon Paradigm, Nature or Existence is primary, is on-going and eternal, and all things--living and non-living, divine or human--exist within the confines of nature. According to the speculation of early Mormon theologians/philosophers Orson Pratt's and Parley P. Pratt, to exist is to have a nature, and thus limits. The endless potential of the Divine is no from that of humans, and it has to do with the limitless ability to comprehend existence itself.
Of course, the validity one gives any sort of sepculation will be determined by the vailidity one gives to human consciousness. Can humans grasp through their natural senses information about the nature of the universe, and can they by virtue of their rational minds understand the nature of the universe. If one discounts the abiility of humanity to comprehend existence by virtue of their senses, then one's speculations needn't be rooted in the natural world or existence; one accepts the primacy of consciousness, where flights of fancy can be regarded as being just as reliable as any theory science might produce. But if one accepts the primacy of existnce or nature over consciousness, then one will demand actual proof from nature for theories and speculations. In the end, everything comes down to epistemology."
Friday, April 14, 2006
THE HOPE OF A RESURRECTION:THE VALUING OF LIFE OVER DEATH
“The spirit and body is the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.” (The Doctrine & Covenants 88: 15-16)
Easter is the celebration of life over death, commemorated through remembering the story of Christ’s resurrection, three days after his crucifixion.
Joseph Smith and the early Mormons took the resurrection very seriously. Some Mormon scholars are of the opinion that a belief in the literal resurrection of the body is the foundation of all differences between the distinct theology of 19th century Mormonism and that of orthodox Christianity.
Life on the frontier in 19th century America was fraught with dangers. Pregnancy was dangerous, as was giving birth. Infant mortality was high. (Joseph and Emma Smith lost their first few children in infancy.) Diseases that a century later would require little more than some bed rest (thanks to advances in medicine), were life-threatening. With no understanding of germs and no knowledge of antibiotics, people died from what today would be considered simply infections. Death and intense physical suffering were much more a part of the fabric of everyday life. Most people early in life experienced the death of a loved one.
Joseph Smith was no different from most other people of his day. But by focusing on the ancient Biblical concept of a literal resurrection of the dead, he found the hope and the strength to fight the despair that came as a result of losing his brother Alvin, several of his newborn children and his father--as well as the deaths of close friends and followers.
Regardless if one believes in a literal resurrection or not, what the doctrine symbolizes is the triumph of life on earth over death. It was on this that Joseph and Mormons--both in his day and in our own--focused. Whereas many orthodox Christians interpret the idea of the Resurrection as eternal life in a purely spiritual realm, Mormonism has focused on the resurrection as a restoration of the things which humans value in this life: the bonds of family, the intimate relations of husbands and wives, friendships, knowledge gained in this life, the potential for continual growth and progress.
For your Easter meditations, various Biblical verses (from both the Hebrew and Christian Testaments) related to the concept of the Resurrection are printed below, followed extracts from an 1843 sermon on the subject given by Joseph Smith.
“And have hope toward God,
…that there shall be a resurrection
of the dead, both the just and the unjust.”
“….For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall
have put on immortality, then shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O Death, where is thy sting?
O Grave, where is thy victory?”
“Why should it be thought
a thing incredible with you,
that God should raise the dead?”
“Marvel not at this:
for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth…”
“Thy dead man shall live, together
with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust:
for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead.”
“And they that be wise shall shine
As the brightness of the firmament;
and they that turn many to righteousness
as the stars for ever and ever.”
(Acts 26:8; Acts 24:15; I Corinthians 15: 53-55;
John 5: 28; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:3)
“I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection let me strike hands with my father, and cry, “My father,” and he will say, “My son, my son,” as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of the graves.
“May we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning, and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other’s embrace and renew their conversation.
“Would you think it strange if I relate what I have seen in vision in relation to this interesting them?…So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They took each other by the hand and said to each other, “My father, my son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister.” And when the voice calls the dead to rise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me.
“It is my meditation all the day, and more than my meat and drink, to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind.
“All your loses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the visions of the Almighty I have seen it.
“More painful to me are the thoughts of annihilation than death. If I have no expectation of seeing my father, mother, brothers, sisters and friends again, my heart would burst in a moment and I would go down to the grave.
“The expectation of seeing my friends in the morning of the resurrection cheers my soul and makes me bear up against the evils of life. It is like their taking a long journey, and on their return we meet them with increased joy.” (Joseph Smith-- April 16, 1843)
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
Easter is the celebration of life over death, commemorated through remembering the story of Christ’s resurrection, three days after his crucifixion.
Joseph Smith and the early Mormons took the resurrection very seriously. Some Mormon scholars are of the opinion that a belief in the literal resurrection of the body is the foundation of all differences between the distinct theology of 19th century Mormonism and that of orthodox Christianity.
Life on the frontier in 19th century America was fraught with dangers. Pregnancy was dangerous, as was giving birth. Infant mortality was high. (Joseph and Emma Smith lost their first few children in infancy.) Diseases that a century later would require little more than some bed rest (thanks to advances in medicine), were life-threatening. With no understanding of germs and no knowledge of antibiotics, people died from what today would be considered simply infections. Death and intense physical suffering were much more a part of the fabric of everyday life. Most people early in life experienced the death of a loved one.
Joseph Smith was no different from most other people of his day. But by focusing on the ancient Biblical concept of a literal resurrection of the dead, he found the hope and the strength to fight the despair that came as a result of losing his brother Alvin, several of his newborn children and his father--as well as the deaths of close friends and followers.
Regardless if one believes in a literal resurrection or not, what the doctrine symbolizes is the triumph of life on earth over death. It was on this that Joseph and Mormons--both in his day and in our own--focused. Whereas many orthodox Christians interpret the idea of the Resurrection as eternal life in a purely spiritual realm, Mormonism has focused on the resurrection as a restoration of the things which humans value in this life: the bonds of family, the intimate relations of husbands and wives, friendships, knowledge gained in this life, the potential for continual growth and progress.
For your Easter meditations, various Biblical verses (from both the Hebrew and Christian Testaments) related to the concept of the Resurrection are printed below, followed extracts from an 1843 sermon on the subject given by Joseph Smith.
“And have hope toward God,
…that there shall be a resurrection
of the dead, both the just and the unjust.”
“….For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall
have put on immortality, then shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O Death, where is thy sting?
O Grave, where is thy victory?”
“Why should it be thought
a thing incredible with you,
that God should raise the dead?”
“Marvel not at this:
for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth…”
“Thy dead man shall live, together
with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust:
for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead.”
“And they that be wise shall shine
As the brightness of the firmament;
and they that turn many to righteousness
as the stars for ever and ever.”
(Acts 26:8; Acts 24:15; I Corinthians 15: 53-55;
John 5: 28; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:3)
“I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection let me strike hands with my father, and cry, “My father,” and he will say, “My son, my son,” as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of the graves.
“May we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning, and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other’s embrace and renew their conversation.
“Would you think it strange if I relate what I have seen in vision in relation to this interesting them?…So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They took each other by the hand and said to each other, “My father, my son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister.” And when the voice calls the dead to rise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me.
“It is my meditation all the day, and more than my meat and drink, to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind.
“All your loses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the visions of the Almighty I have seen it.
“More painful to me are the thoughts of annihilation than death. If I have no expectation of seeing my father, mother, brothers, sisters and friends again, my heart would burst in a moment and I would go down to the grave.
“The expectation of seeing my friends in the morning of the resurrection cheers my soul and makes me bear up against the evils of life. It is like their taking a long journey, and on their return we meet them with increased joy.” (Joseph Smith-- April 16, 1843)
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
Friday, April 07, 2006
FAITH REQUIRES EVIDENCE
Early Mormon philosopher Orson Pratt reasoned that an individual could not exercise faith without the existence of convincing evidence:
“Faith…is not an abstract principle, separate and distinct from the mind, but it is a certain condition or state of the mind itself. When the mind believes or has confidence in any subject, or statement, or proposition, whether correct or incorrect, it is then in possession of faith…
“Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything. We believe that a stone will fall, when unsupported, on the evidence of past observation…we believe that day and night will continue on the evidence of past experience in regard to the uniformity of nature’s laws. We believe that space is boundless, and duration endless, on the evidence, presented to the mind itself…We believe in all self-evident truths, on the evidence that all opposite propositions to these truths are absurd. We believe in all the great truths of science, either on the evidences of our own investigations, or on the researches of others. We believe historical fact on the evidence of the historian….without evidence, faith can have no existence….
“…As evidence precedes faith, the latter should be weak or strong in proportion to the weakness or strength of the evidence. Where the evidence is accompanied by circumstances of a doubtful nature; or where it relates to things which are, in some degree, improbable in themselves; or where there is opposing evidence of nearly the same influence or weight; or where there is only circumstantial evidence--faith should be weak….
“The weakness or strength of faith will, therefore, in all cases, be in proportion to the weakness or strength of the impressions, produced upon the mind by evidence…
“Man, through the influence of sophistry, or popularity, or surrounding circumstances, or tradition, or many causes combined, may be biased in his judgment, partial in his investigations, and swayed from that searching analysis--which is sometimes requisite in order to discover the truth or error of the subject, statement or proposition under consideration. Even his own sense, uncorrected by his judgment, often led him astray….[For instance] all the inhabitants of our globe were, for many centuries, deceived in regard to the apparent motions of heavenly bodies. They believed that the sun, moon, planets, and stars, revolved around the earth until Copernius undeceived them, by proving that the appearances were the result of the simple diurnal rotation of the earth…
“…When faith, either true or false, is significantly powerful to lead to action, it produces effects characteristic of the cause…
“…Faith alone will not save men; neither will faith and works save them, unless they are of the right kind.” (Orson Pratt, "The True Faith")
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the relationship of faith (or believing) to objective evidence?
2. Often in traditional religions, faith is presented as a virtue in and of itself. But Pratt wrote of “Correct Faith” and “Incorrect Faith.” How does this concept strike you? What determines whether one’s faith is “Correct” or “Incorrect?” What type of evidence is required to make that determination?
3. In your own experiences, how have your prejudices, your emotions, your upbringing or religious training effected your judgments regarding the evidence of certain ideas?
4. With regard to Mormon history, Mormons in many other denominations have criticized the works of historians that are not “faith promoting.” What do they mean by the phrase “faith promoting” or “testimony building” history?
5. In the end, can an historian truly promote “Correct Faith” by ignoring or denying certain facts, or by taking them out of context? Why or why not?
6. In your own life, what has been the result of those times when you acted in faith upon ideas or principles for which there was insufficient evidence?
REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
Faith (or belief) can promote and foster an individual’s Progression only when it is based upon the objective fact, and when the individual chooses to shed his or her prejudices and preconceived notions enough to honestly examine the evidence given.
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.
“Faith…is not an abstract principle, separate and distinct from the mind, but it is a certain condition or state of the mind itself. When the mind believes or has confidence in any subject, or statement, or proposition, whether correct or incorrect, it is then in possession of faith…
“Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything. We believe that a stone will fall, when unsupported, on the evidence of past observation…we believe that day and night will continue on the evidence of past experience in regard to the uniformity of nature’s laws. We believe that space is boundless, and duration endless, on the evidence, presented to the mind itself…We believe in all self-evident truths, on the evidence that all opposite propositions to these truths are absurd. We believe in all the great truths of science, either on the evidences of our own investigations, or on the researches of others. We believe historical fact on the evidence of the historian….without evidence, faith can have no existence….
“…As evidence precedes faith, the latter should be weak or strong in proportion to the weakness or strength of the evidence. Where the evidence is accompanied by circumstances of a doubtful nature; or where it relates to things which are, in some degree, improbable in themselves; or where there is opposing evidence of nearly the same influence or weight; or where there is only circumstantial evidence--faith should be weak….
“The weakness or strength of faith will, therefore, in all cases, be in proportion to the weakness or strength of the impressions, produced upon the mind by evidence…
“Man, through the influence of sophistry, or popularity, or surrounding circumstances, or tradition, or many causes combined, may be biased in his judgment, partial in his investigations, and swayed from that searching analysis--which is sometimes requisite in order to discover the truth or error of the subject, statement or proposition under consideration. Even his own sense, uncorrected by his judgment, often led him astray….[For instance] all the inhabitants of our globe were, for many centuries, deceived in regard to the apparent motions of heavenly bodies. They believed that the sun, moon, planets, and stars, revolved around the earth until Copernius undeceived them, by proving that the appearances were the result of the simple diurnal rotation of the earth…
“…When faith, either true or false, is significantly powerful to lead to action, it produces effects characteristic of the cause…
“…Faith alone will not save men; neither will faith and works save them, unless they are of the right kind.” (Orson Pratt, "The True Faith")
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the relationship of faith (or believing) to objective evidence?
2. Often in traditional religions, faith is presented as a virtue in and of itself. But Pratt wrote of “Correct Faith” and “Incorrect Faith.” How does this concept strike you? What determines whether one’s faith is “Correct” or “Incorrect?” What type of evidence is required to make that determination?
3. In your own experiences, how have your prejudices, your emotions, your upbringing or religious training effected your judgments regarding the evidence of certain ideas?
4. With regard to Mormon history, Mormons in many other denominations have criticized the works of historians that are not “faith promoting.” What do they mean by the phrase “faith promoting” or “testimony building” history?
5. In the end, can an historian truly promote “Correct Faith” by ignoring or denying certain facts, or by taking them out of context? Why or why not?
6. In your own life, what has been the result of those times when you acted in faith upon ideas or principles for which there was insufficient evidence?
REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
Faith (or belief) can promote and foster an individual’s Progression only when it is based upon the objective fact, and when the individual chooses to shed his or her prejudices and preconceived notions enough to honestly examine the evidence given.
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.
Friday, March 31, 2006
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
(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
Friday, March 24, 2006
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
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
Saturday, February 18, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
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."
"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."
Sunday, February 12, 2006
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
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
Friday, February 10, 2006
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
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
Sunday, January 22, 2006
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."
"... 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."
Saturday, January 14, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
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!
"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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
