OPPOSITION IN ALL THINGS: Exploring the story of Adam & Eve

For most faiths that embrace it, the story of Adam and Eve has traditionally been seen as the story of humanity’s “fall” from God’s grace. The story is taken as a parable, illustrating how humanity’s pride and vanity--expressed in their desire for knowledge, in their attempts to become gods--brought about sin and death. Many who accept this interpretation of the story, bemoan humanity’s loss of Eden; they look back longingly to the garden paradise, wishing that they could return there, escaping from the pain and suffering of human existence.


Mormonism rejects every major point in this interpretation of the story. Indeed, Mormonism’s interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve presents a positive, life-affirming, benevolent view of existence, human nature and God.


Our next several lessons will explore Mormonism’s new and unorthodox take on this timeless story.

THE MORMON STORY OF ADAM & EVE

What follows is a retelling of the story of Adam and Eve, edited together from the Bible, as various Mormon scriptures and Mormon liturgy--in this case the dramatized section of the 1990 LDS Temple Endowment ceremony. (References for the sources can be found at the end of the lesson.)


The Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man Adam and the woman Eve. Out of the ground the Gods made grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life, also, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the Gods took the man and woman and put them in the Garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it.


And the Gods commanded them, saying: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the time that you eat it, you shall surely die. Nevertheless, you may choose for yourself, for it is given to you.”


And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Has God said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”


And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”


And the serpent said unto the woman, “You shall not surely die: for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing• good and evil. That is the way Father gained his knowledge. You must eat of this fruit so as to comprehend that everything has its opposite: good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness, health and sickness, pleasure and pain; and thus your eyes will be opened and you will have knowledge.”


“Is there no other way?” asked the women.


“There is no other way,” the serpent replied.


When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit, and did eat. She gave it also to her husband, saying, “It is better for us to pass through sorrow that we may know the good from the evil.”


And the man did eat. And their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.


When they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, Adam and Eve hid themselves among the trees of the garden.


The Lord God called unto Adam, saying, “Where are you?”


Adam replied, “I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”


And the Lord said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded you that you should not eat?”


The man said, “The woman, who you gave me and commanded to stay with me, gave me the fruit of the tree and I did eat.”


And the woman said: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”


To the woman, the Lord said, “In sorrow you shall bring forth children.”


And to Adam he said, “Instead of producing fruits and flowers spontaneously, the earth shall bring forth thorns, thistles, briars, and noxious weeds. By the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread all the days of your life.”


And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Therefore let cherubim and a flaming sword be placed to guard the way of the Tree of Life, lest Adam put forth his hand and partake of the fruit thereof, and live forever in his sins.”


Then the Lord God sent Adam and Eve forth from the garden of Eden, and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.


Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, his wife, did labor with him.


And Adam knew his wife, and she bore sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth.


And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: “Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgressions my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh shall see God.’


And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had children, and never should have known good and evil.”


And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known to their sons and their daughters.


If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. All things which were created would have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; they would have remained forever, and had no end. And Adam and Eve would have had no children; they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.


Behold, there must be opposition in all things. If not so, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad; and all things would be a compound in one, having neither life or death, corruption or incorruption, happiness or misery, sense or insensibility. There would have been no purpose in its creation.


The Lord God gave to man that he should act for himself. Man could not act for himself unless he was enticed by one thing or another. To bring about God’s eternal purpose for mankind, the forbidden fruit stood in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Men and women are free according to the flesh. They are free to choose liberty and eternal life, or to choose captivity and death.


Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

THE NEED FOR OPPOSITION IN ALL THINGS

In his 1996 best-selling book, How Good To We Have To Be? Rabbi Harold Kushner examines at length how the story of Adam and Eve has been traditionally interpreted. Rejecting these interpretations, he embraces a view that is similar to that of Mormonism: opposition in all things is what makes life worthwhile for human beings.


To illustrate his point, he writes his own version of how life might have been had the story of Adam and Eve ended as most traditionalists wish:



“So the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and a delight to the eye, and the serpent said to her, ‘Eat of it, for when you eat of it, you will be wise as God.’ But the woman said, ‘No, God has commanded us not to eat it, and I will not disobey God.’


And God called the man and the woman and said to them, ‘Because you have hearkened to My word and not disobeyed My command, I shall reward you greatly.’


To the man, He said, ‘You shall never have to work again. Spend all your days in idle contentment, with food growing all around you.’


To the woman, He said, ‘You will bear children without pain and you will raise them without pain. They will need nothing from you. Children will not cry when their parents die, and parents will not cry when their children die.’


To both of them, He said, ‘For the rest of your lives, you will have full bellies and contented smiles. You will never cry and you will never laugh. You will never long for something that you don’t have, and you will never receive something you always wanted.’


And the man and the woman grew old together in the garden, eating daily from the Tree of Life and having many children.


And the grass grew high around the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil until it disappeared from view, for there was no one to tend it.”

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Regarding opposition in all things, consider the following verse from The Book of Mormon :


“And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.” (II Nephi 2:15)

Notice the order in which the forbidden fruit and the tree of life are listed in the above...and the order in which the adjectives that follow are listed. This verse seems to indicate that it is the forbidden fruit (representing knowledge of good and evil) that is sweet, while the tree of life (representing eternal life in a state of innocence) is bitter.

DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR INSIGHTS?

Please share them with others. To have them added to this website, email them to:
Reformmormons@aol.com.

All views are welcomed!

THE DISCUSSION

Gaia D writes:

There are many who beleive that the "curses" of Adam and Eve -- and the subsequence inequities, struggle, and hierarchies in this life --provide a pattern for the way things are supposed to be in this life. However, there is another view -- that the curses were a result of transgression, and therefore sin; that they are therefore NOT the way God wants things to be, and are to be FOUGHT against. The Divine way was UNITY and egalitarianism; it is sin that has given us hierarchy, struggle, pain and unfairness. Thus, to truly accept the Atonement and to make it work in our existence, would be to BANISH hierarchy, struggle, unfairness between the sexes, and RESTORE UNITY --so the Adam and Eve story actually calls us to repentence and UNITY. Comments? (January 25, 2005)

Rob Lauer writes:

From what I know of Christian orthodoxy, the second view expressed above (that the acts of Adam and Eve were sins that required punishment, and that therefore the current state of existence is not what God originally intended) is the prevailing view...thus, we have the doctrine of Original Sin which views the natural order, human nature and ALL human socities, sructures and efforts as inherently sinful, fallen and in need of redemption.

I long subscribed to this view of things. Indeed, it was my wrestling with this view that led me to leave LDS Mormonism in my early twenties and returning to Orthodox Christianity. Later, as my understanding of the nature of things changed, I rejected this view altogether. Tt was the unique Mormon view of the so-called "Fall of Adam and Eve" that led me to reconsider Mormonism and later to convert back to the faith.

The concept of the "Fall" as a fall from a previous Divinely sanctioned state of unity is interesting, and seems to echoe some strains of Eastern religion and perhaps some strands of Platonic philosophy.

However, Mormonism (at least as it later evolved under Joseph Smith in the late 1830's through the mid-1840's) seems to embrace what I would call (for lack of a better phrase) Classical Western ideals--and chief among these is the reality of the human individual and the individual's free will. Indeed, I think that Mormonism's greatest contribution to world religion is the new paradigm it establishes through it's reimagining of the "Creation" and Adam & Eve stories.

This reimagining includes Joseph Smith's "pre-lude" to the Bible's Creation account: the pre-existence of the individual mind, the Council of the Gods, etc.

According to Joseph Smith's later teachings (which, to my current understanding, resonate more harmoniously with certain strands of Classical Paganism, Gnosticism, Hemeticism and Kabalism than with Orthodox Christianity or Eastern mysticism) the individual mind is an eternally separate, single entity, that is uncreated and this co-equal with God; an individual entity whose intelligence may be greater or lesser than that of other individuals; and yet an individual entity that is bound by the same eternal, uncreated restraints, limitations and laws that govern all other individuals and all existence. The progression or regression of the individual is based upon the way in which she/he acts in relation to these unchanging laws and conditions.

Where Joseph Smith waxed (in my opinion) gloriously blasphemous (in light of both Western and Eastern religions) is that he rejected the idea of a god (or gods) who created these eternal laws and who set the limitations on existence. According to Joseph's new paradigm the being (or beings) that humans revere as Divine is bound by the same eternal restraints of existence that govern humans. Indeed, the Divine is merely the human realizing its full potential.

Regarding hierarchies: these occur within nature. Joseph, writing in Abraham Chapter 3, lays out the idea I mentioned above: that the differences among uncreated intelligent beings is eternal. In a free society, individuals would be allowed to pursue their values and rise to whatever level that their natural endowments and efforts take them. I see nothing inherently sinful in such naturally occuring hierarchies.

Human thought itself is hierarchal in natue--appraising things and ordering them as superior or inferior, first or second, etc. in relation to the overall sense of life that the individual holds. The existence of such mental hierachies, it seems to me, is essential for the exercise of free agency. (This is another idea that one finds laid out in The Book of Mormon, II Nephi, chapter 2.)

Since I view the eating of the Fruit of Knowledge as a myth symbolzing the evolution of the human mind from the level of a brute beast to one which can conceptualize and engage in abstract thought--thus, establishing mental heirarchies--I see this as a virtue and a good, indeed, godly thing. ("And the Lord said, 'Behold the man has become as one of us to know good from evil'"--that is, to perceive and establish mental heirarchies of "good" and "evil.") I don't view this as a transgression or sin from which we need to be saved or redeemed. Indeed, I see our current condition as the only foundation upon which intelligent beings can establish true virtue and righteous.

Egalitarianism, however, is something which to my knowledge has never been found to exist within nature. Indeed, just the opposite exists. From my reading of history (and very recent history at that) the pursuit of Egalitarian ideals has resulted in great human suffering--for it usually involves governments or religious institutions initiating force against individuals for the supposed crime or sin of living according to their inherent nature. The attempt is made to enforce a medium or an average to which all individuals must sacrifice or deny those aspects of their individual characters and natures that make them unqiue. These governments in recent times have, in the name of eqalitarianism and unity among their citizens, imprisoned or murdered millions of their own.

As long as the initiation of force is held to be immoral (and the Mormon concept of Free Agency as well as the Mormon account of Satan's fall seem, to my mind, to establish that the initiation of force IS immoral because it is contrary to human nature--meaning the exercise of Free Agency), my present understanding is that societal hierarchies based on rational attempts to understand and live in accordance with human nature are not only just okay, but represent the highest in humans as social beings. Likewise the pursuit of Egalitarian ideals--because they are contrary to human nature--are, to my mind, mere "forms of godliness" that deny that individuals have "the power thereof"--meaning, the inherent power to be godly.

Any thoughts? (January 25, 2005)

References for this lesson:

Abraham 5:16,19
Genesis 3:1-5
1990 Temple Endowment drama
Genesis 3:6
1990 Temple Endowment drama
Genesis 3:6-11
Moses 4:18-19
Genesis 3:16-17Abraham 5:7-9.11-13
Moses 3:17
1990 Temple Endowment dram
Genesis 3:
1990 Temple Endowment drama
Genesis 3:22-24
Moses 5:1-2
Moses 5:10-12
II Nephi 2:22-24
II Nephi 2: 11-12
]II Nephi 2: 15-16
II Nephi 2:27
II Nephi 2:25
How Good to We Have to Be? by Harold Kushner (1996, Little Brown & Company, New York, NY) pp.32-33

HUMAN LIFE: The Highest Value

Welcome to a new series of Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine lessons. We hope that you find much for food thought here, and that you will share any thoughts, insights, opinions or questions that you might have. Simply email us at: Reformmormons@aol.com

All views are welcomed and will be posted here.

For more information on Reform Mormonism, please visit: www.reformmormonism.org.

SCRIPTURE LESSON

(The following is edited together from the creation accounts found in The Book of Abraham, The Book of Moses and The King Follett Discourse, as well as corresponding passages in the Doctrine & Covenants, Sections 93 and 130. Footnotes for all scripture quoted below can be found at the end of this lesson.)

And the Lord said: “Behold there are many worlds that have passed away, and there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man. The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens, even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

Behold, I will reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth:

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they concocted a plan to create the world and people it.

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Now the Lord had shown unto me the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these were many of the great and noble ones. (You were also in the beginning with the Father.) And God saw these souls that they were good, for every spirit was innocent in the beginning.

God, himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege to advance like himself.

(The relationship we have with God places us in a station to advance in knowledge. He has the power to institute laws to instruct weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and the knowledge, power, glory and intelligence that is required to exalt them. Knowledge is what saves a man. Whatever principle of intelligence we attain in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection, for the glory of God is intelligence. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.)

And there stood one among the Gods that was like unto God, and he said to those that were with him: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth where on these may dwell.”

The Lord said: “Let us go down.” And they went down at the beginning, and the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: “Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them. And the Gods said: “We will bless them. Behold, we will give them life.”

WHAT IS OF MOST VALUE?
MISREADING NATURE

What is of most value? What is that one value upon which all others rest? What is to be held sacred above all else?

Different religions have different answers. Few, however, would say that human life on earth is the highest value. In fact, most traditional religions have regarded human life on earth as something that is of transitory value only; the things of this earth are to be resisted and overcome.

Believers of most faiths have been taught to view their life as an object of sacrifice; one must be willing to put the well-being of others, the will of God or some other imagined “greater good” before their own survival. The implication is that we live in a fallen dog-eat-world in which there is just so much happiness, joy and life to go around; that if one person lives, it must be at the expense of another‘s life and well-being; that if one enjoys a happy life, it is always at the expense of someone else’s happiness.

Such a negative view of life on earth is grounded in the concept of Original Sin--the belief that human nature is corrupt, that life on earth (the natural world) is fallen and somehow out of synch with God; that “the natural man is an enemy to God.” (See Mosiah 3:19)

Reform Mormonism rejects Original Sin and all its sister doctrines and concepts. According to Reform Mormonism, human nature is not fallen or inherently sinful. In fact, Reform Mormons would tend to agree with Brigham Young who explicitly rejected this idea, declaring that if The Book of Mormon would have been written later, based on what we now know regarding the nature of human beings and sin, this scripture would declare, “The natural man is a friend of God.”

As for life on earth being dog-eat-dog, this is not the natural state of things for human beings. Humans, being born in the image of God, are rational beings and free agents who can think, imagine, create, project into the future and contemplate the possible outcome of their actions. They can enter into relationships with one another that are mutually loving and supportive; create alliances and covenants that benefit all individuals involved, without the need of sacrifice or pain on the part of any one. That this does not always happen does not imply that human nature is fallen or inherently sinful. The fact that most people recognize injustice and are repelled by it testifies that most people see such situations as being out of harmony with human nature. Indeed, we tend to label unjust actions as inhumane.

LIFE OF EARTH:

A PUNISHMENT, A TRIAL OR A VALUE IN ITSELF?

Given the negative view of human nature put forth by most religions, it is only logical that life on earth would be viewed negatively as a punishment for evil done in a previous life, as a painful separation from God, or a painful school or training ground for some future existence that we are assured will be superior to this one.

Given this negativity, it is understandable why some religious communities far outside the mainstream of society have ended tragically in communal suicides. (Jim Jones and the Peoples’ Temple is one modern example of this.) But even religions that are considered traditional and mainstream teach that one should view his/her life on earth as something which must be sacrificed or offered up to God; that to value life on earth above life in heaven is the root of sin.

LIFE ON EARTH AS A STEP UP

Mormonism teaches that the human mind is eternal, that it existed with God before the genesis of earth. The purpose of human existence is to progress eternally and become like God.
For this to happen, each of us had to “come to earth” --to borrow a phrase used by many Mormons. In one’s eternal progression toward Godhood, life on earth is a step upward. We each become like God only as we immerse ourselves in the experience of being human, of experiencing fully life on earth, of thinking for ourselves, pursuing those things each of us honestly sees as good and as having the greater value. Human love, knowledge, science, beauty--all of these things that traditional religions have tended to view with suspicion--these, according to Reform Mormonism, are the very things that we should pursue. The knowledge and experience that we gain from these things are of eternal worth; they will exalt us.

According to the Mormon creation account, each of us was present with God before the beginning. Each of us accepted the divine plan to progress forward by embracing life on earth. Seeing the beauty of life on earth, the glory of being human, the potential for growth, progress and holiness inherent in all of this--when the foundations of the earth were laid, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [meaning, all of us] shouted for joy.” (See Job 38:7)

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

Human life is God’s highest value; preserving it is the object of his work, for as God in Mormon scripture has declared, “This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:37-38) Valuing human life is the foundation of morality and godliness.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. How can viewing human nature are fallen and inherently sinful lead to a devaluing of human life itself?

2. Can you think of any example in today’s world of how traditional religion’s negative view of human nature has lead--or is leading--to abuse, injustice, the negation of human rights, oppression and other atrocities?

3. How can holding human life on earth as one’s highest value serve as the foundation for a rational and achievable code of morality and ethics?

NEXT LESSON:
EATING THE FRUIT OF KNOWLEDGE: OPPOSITION IN ALL THINGS
(Scriptural text: Book of Mormon, II Nephi, Chapter 2)

SCRIPTURAL FOOTNOTES FOR THIS LESSON:

Moses 1:35

Moses 1:37
Moses 1:37-38
Moses 2:1
Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse
Doctrine & Covenants 93:29
Abraham 3:22
Doctrine & Covenants 93:23
Abraham 3:22
Doctrine & Covenants 93:38
Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse
Doctrine & Covenants 130:18
Doctrine & Covenants 93:36
Doctrine & Covenants 130:19
Abraham 4:1

Abraham 4:26-28

Abraham 4:30

Faith and Knowledge

December 5, 2004

In a previous Gospel Doctrine discussion we examined the substantial and differential role that faith plays for Reform Mormons. Faith for us is not just a belief in God or a noun designating a type of belief. Faith is a personal requirement necessary for progression. Acts of faith lead us to the second principle of our religion: Knowledge. For many people, knowledge and faith are opposites, but for Reform Mormons the two compliment each other and are absolutely required in order to progress.

Recently I had a discussion with a friend of mine about this very subject. He's a Baptist, and currently struggling through Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. He said that he had a hard time with the difference between faith and knowledge, and saw the two as opposites. He asked me how I handled it; I was more than willing to jump in and offer the Reform Mormon perspective.

Because our use of the word "faith" means so much more than just a belief in God, I had to start by explaining most of what we discussed on our last Gospel Doctrine discussion. Faith that our actions can result in an eventual outcome are usually based on knowledge, and patterns that we observe. For example, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow (as I mentioned before an "easy faith") can be rationally held based upon the pattern we have observed as well as the knowledge we have about how the solar system works. Faith that the sun will rise might be shaken by an eclipse, but our knowledge of the solar system together with our observance of the pattern combine to create a stronger faith base in understanding the sun and its habits.

Exercising faith causes us to learn new things. The scientist has faith in the scientific method, that by formulating a theory and testing it he or she may strengthen their faith in the theory. In the area of knowledge, nothing has served mankind better than the scientific method. Tremendous progress has occurred as a result. Yet some see this new knowledge as threatening to their faith. Knowledge is only threatening to faith if faith is based upon a static set of assumptions to which new information might be challenging. If "faith" is about progression, as it is for Reform Mormons, then faith is never threatened by new knowledge; faith is always enhanced by knowledge. I explained to my Baptist friend that as a result of this functional view of faith, important discoveries such as the theory of evolution have become fuel for progress for me rather than something I have to "fit" into my belief system. He seemed dubious.

Knowledge reintegrates into faith for a Reform Mormon by cycling through all four of our principles: Faith, Knowledge, Revelation, Restoration. Revelation adds the esoteric to our knowledge, giving it balance, and Restoration adds meaning to that compound to finalize it. The result is a new faith, further along the path of life, ready for exercise in a new way. This is dynamic and exciting.

My Baptist friend, and so many others I know, take what I consider to be a passive approach to faith. Faith is merely belief in God, and having joined a prefabricated belief system (church) they turn their faith progression decisions over to this body, subjugating some or many of their own interests for the sake of conformity with the system they have agreed to support. For many people this approach does not develop the kind of faith we have been discussing here. For many people it becomes a license to "turn off" progression, and return to a static faith. This develops into things like literal belief in scripture, unquestioning devotion to ecclesiastical leaders, and other problems that are at the root of religious failure today. Many churches actually actively teach their adherents to avoid knowledge, as though there is virtue in never progressing, and damnation in discovering new ways to believe. What a disservice this is to the children of God.

To a Reform Mormon, Albert Einstein and countless others were as - in fact, more - prophetic than Heber J. Grant. They brought new knowledge of the ways of God (God's creation) into our sphere of awareness such that we could integrate them into our faith. Such action is progression at its finest.

We believe that this is what Joseph Smith meant when he suggested that we have got to learn things, and learn to become Gods. God didn't become God by sitting on her butt all day, going to church on Sunday, and making sure she took care of a few rituals. There is no huge "data dump" coming from God that magically turns you into one. You're going to have to learn it.

The desire to progress and exercise our faith is fundamental, but it also has an element that is transcendental - that is, there's an element that seems to defy the cold rationality of logic and reason. This is revelation, our next principle, which we will discuss more in the weeks to come. Every time we obtain new knowledge we need revelation to balance it - and when we do this, we approach the veil and begin to tap into knowledge that is not cold and rational, but warm and loving. I believe it is this desire that my Baptist friend recognizes and sees as antithetical to knowledge. In effect, he goes directly from faith to revelation, eschewing knowledge in the process. One is never sure if another human being has understood your meaning and intent clearly, but that day I did my best to explain why knowledge isn't at all the opposite of faith. For me, knowledge and faith are completely connected and essential, and they don't clash at all. You get from faith to revelation by way of knowledge, not by avoiding it.

Still to come: Before adding new knowledge to your faith base, make sure you round it out and give it meaning. These important steps are achieved in the acts of revelation and restoration, principles three and four.

In the meantime, what have you done recently to increase your faith?

Reform Mormonism’s First Principle: Faith (not the generic kind you’re probably thinking of.)

November 14, 2004

The word faith is flung around loosely. Typically it’s assumed to mean either the New Testament approach of hope in things not seen, or for many more people, a simple belief in God or a higher being.

Faith is also used to designate a sect or denomination: “they’re of the Islamic faith.”

But faith – to Reform Mormons – carries a much more powerful connotation. Sure, it refers to our belief in God and to our categorization as Reform Mormons. But there’s a significant reason why it’s the first principle of our belief. It’s the first step in the important cycle of creation, and the motivating force that brought us into existence. Nothing exists without it. We have to participate in that. That’s a whole different perspective on the word.

Our fourth article of faith reads: “The first principles of our belief are: first, faith; second, knowledge; third, revelation; fourth, restoration.” For those who understand that the fourth principle, restoration, is the completion of an eternal round, bringing us back to the beginning of the process (which I’ve always found to be a lot like coming home,) faith is always seen as the first great step in learning to progress (or, the first great step away from home.) Once we complete the cycle, we’re always back at the beginning, facing the need to start again – and to begin the process, faith is required. Sometimes this is a daunting and challenging idea. Sometime we do it without even realizing we have done it.

Faith in this context is the motivating force of action. We do not make a cognitive choice, or proceed with the intent to create, if we do not believe that the results of our actions will create something.

• Questions for consideration: Is faith just instinct? Do those who lack a sense of the need to progress lack faith?

It doesn’t take a great deal of faith to make some plans for tomorrow. It’s an easy faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and we will be able to perform tasks and execute plans. But the things we decide to do – particularly if they require us to “leave home” and try new, untested waters – do require faith. Faith – our belief - that there will be a desired outcome. Faith – our personal belief - that we possess the ability to do the tasks we have assigned ourselves. Faith - our personal confidence - that when things become challenging we will see them through. Faith that we will be sustained. Faith that we will have produced something of value, that our efforts will not have been wasted. The larger the task ahead, the greater the faith required.

As Reform Mormons, this type of faith is directly related to our perspective of ourselves as gods in training. As Joseph Smith taught, “this is something you have got to learn to do.” The Lectures on Faith teach that faith was the motivating force by which God created the Earth.

That’s a nice model for you to contemplate the next time you’re considering extending yourself and your abilities. That’s a great reason to try, even if you’re afraid you might fail. What you learn after you try (and succeed or fail in the process) is knowledge – the second principle of our belief. But that’s another Gospel Doctrine lesson on another day, a day I strongly believe will arrive!

---

Please share you thoughts and comments on faith and this lesson on the Reform Mormon Discussion Group.

Additionally, you can explore the Lectures on Faith. (These were removed from LDS canon in 1921.)

Faith, Knowledge, Revelation and Restoration are the central pillars of Reform Mormonism, at the heart of belief and action, and are integrated into Reform Mormon theology (read more) and observance, such as the Sabbath and the Endowment (read more).

Scripture as Art: Reframing The Book Of Mormon

November 7, 2004

Since the "Galelio Event" of no Middle-Eastern genetic evidence in Native Americans, all those professing a belief in the Book of Mormon - and its claim that modern-day Native Amercans are descended from Lamantes - have had to come to terms with this evidence and find some way to explain the Book of Mormon's histocracy.

A recent issue of Sunstone was devoted to the exploration of the idea of "reframing" the Book of Mormon. Those with long-held beliefs in the literalness of the book are looking for ways to square the evidence with their belief.

To lay the issue out for examination, here are a couple of excerpts from that issue. First, from Brent Metcalfe, one of the co-editors of American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, in which the article by Thomas Murphy recently laid out the DNA case. (Mr. Murphy, a member of the LDS Church, was called in for LDS Church discipline as a result of the article but the church quickly backed off when publicity around the article and disciplinary actions began to look as punishment for being a scientist.)

"We are witnessing the reinvention of the Book of Mormon - not by skeptical critics, but by believing apologists. Most Mormons likely believe what the Book of Mormon introduction teaches - that "the Lamanites ... are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." They hold this belief oblivious to the fact that over the last few decades LDS scholars at Brigham Young University and elsewhere have substantially altered this traditional view.

Findings from multidisciplinary studies of the Book of Mormon have increasingly led LDS scholars to shrink and di­lute the book's American Israelite (or Amerisraelite) popula­tion. Apologetic scholars now recognizez that Book of Mormon events could not have spanned North, Central, and South America, and (2) that modern Amerindians are predom­inately of East Asian ancestry. Confirmation of both acknowl­edgments is found in analyses that establish an Asian, not Middle Eastern, genetic signature for the overwhelming ma­jority of Amerindians.BYU geneticist Michael Whiting stip­ulates, a hemispheric colonization model for the Book of Mormon "is indeed incorrect" and "appears falsified by current genetic evidence."

Many LDS apologists envision the Book of Mormon's founding Israelite colonists as a small group who interacted in varying degrees with the vast indigenous populations of Mesoamerica. In time, sustained widespread exogamy with these "others" effectively extinguished the Israelites' unique Middle Eastern genetic signature. Accordingly, Lamanites and Nephites are defined by something other than Israelite an­cestry. Such theories turn traditional understandings of Book of Mormon lands and peoples, including Joseph Smith's reve­lations, on their head. While perhaps affording revisionist Book of Mormon studies a veneer of scientific respectability, these apologetic ef­forts to reinvent Lamanite identity face some formidable chal­lenges..."

Trent Stephens, professor of anatomy and embryology at Idaho State University and co-author of Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding set up the situation this way:

"The Book of Mormon purports to present a history of three major groups of people who migrated to the Americas from the Middle East. The first group, the Jaredites, apparently annihilated itself. The second group split into the Nephites and Lamanites. The third group, the Mulekites, merged with the Nephites. Shortly after his mission in the Middle East, the resurrected Jesus Christ appeared to descendants of those people. As a result of Christ's teachings, the people became united into one group. Eventually a division again occurred, and a group referred to as Lamanites (unbelievers) split from those referred to as Nephites (believers). Ultimately, the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites and remained as the only representatives of Middle Eastern colonization in the New World.

In contrast to this account, data from numerous molecular population genetic studies suggest that the ancestors of extant Native Americans came from Siberia. No genetic evidence specifically supports the hypothesis that Native Americans descended from Middle Eastern populations. Furthermore, there is little reason to assume that additional data will reverse the current conclusions. In light of these data and conclusions, which challenge the keystone of our faith, many Latter Saints and other interested people may ask, 'Now what? How do we deal with this new information?' Some have referred this quandary as a 'Galileo Event.'

The nature of a sound scientific hypothesis is that it can be easily tested by observation or experimentation and that tests can invalidate the hypothesis. A good scientific hypothesis relevant to the topic at hand might state that all living Native Americans descended from Middle Eastern populations. Such a hypothesis could be tested by comparing genetic markers in Native American populations to markers from Middle Eastern populations. Such a test has never actually been rigorously conducted because such a scientific hypothesis has never been advanced. Rather, an alternative hypothesis has been advanced. That hypothesis is that all living Native Americans descended from Asian populations. The test of that hypothesis, comparing genetic markers from extant Native American populations to those of extant Asian populations, has been repeated many times and supports the stated hypothesis. The most parsimonious conclusion resulting from the test of that hypothesis is that alternative, competing hypotheses, such as one proposing a Middle Eastern origin of Native Americans, are rejected by the data.

Now what? What is one to do with these results, which cast doubt on the authenticity of The Book of Mormon? The implications may be numerous. Most of them, not being based on the formulation of testable hypotheses, fall outside the realm of scientific investigation. In light of the Book of Mormon story, people might react to the data concerning Native American origins in four different ways:

• One - The data refute the historic authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, belief in the book is unfounded and should be abandoned.

• Two - The data may be ignored. In spite of the data, people may continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern descent.

• Three - People may take a wait-and-see attitude. Future data may exonerate their belief that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from Middle Eastern populations.

• Four - The Book of Mormon story is still true. However; the data refute the notion that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern descent. Middle Eastern colonization in the Americas may have been very small compared to the remainder of the population, and, as a result of two major bottleneck events, no genetic evidence of a Middle Eastern origin is present in the extant population, nor is such evidence likely to be forthcoming.

None of those four postures constitute a scientific hypothesis: none of them can be tested by experimentation or observation. Rather, because the implications are beyond the scope of physical science, they fall into the realm of metaphysics. Metaphysical debates are of the nature to continue, without satisfactory conclusion, for centuries or even millennia. The debate resulting from the apparent conflict between the Book of Mormon story and the genetic data is likely to be one such contest."


May I suggest a fifth option? One that Reform Mormons will find in line with their approach to scripture?

Five - The evidence is likely correct. The events in the Book of Mormon never occurred. Many of the claims the book makes about itself are incorrect. It is full of errors, fiction, and fantasy. It is a myth. It's a story designed to play a role in one's belief structure, not to be a history as those in the past have categorized it and some in the present continue to position it. If that role is one of literal truth, the Book of Mormon will likely fail you. If that role is the role of the power of myth, one can find - indeed, many have found - inspiration in the Book of Mormon.

Reform Mormons recognize that all scripture was written by human beings. It is therefore a man-made or woman-made object - a created thing. Does that object contain inspiration? Does any created object contain inspiration? You be the judge. We view writing that is inspired to be "scripture" - which means many other writings may "speak" more loudly to a Reform Mormon than the Book of Mormon, and play the role of "scripture" in their lives than does the Book of Mormon.

Whether or not the book is a literal history is a ridiculous discussion. Reform Mormons don't need to engage in it since we don't connect the idea of its "truthfullness" to the idea that we belong to "the one true church." These concepts mean little or nothing to us, because they're quite useless.

What does mean something? Learning to recognize inspiration in writing, and allowing it to mean something to you that is emotional, satisfying, and more than just the sum of the words. Learning to evaluate and incorporate new facts, not just find ways around them or dismiss them. Learning to create our own writing, explanation, and definitions of what currently has impact in our lives, rather than adopting someone elses's outside system of what should matter. Learning to be free agents.

This is how we learn to progress and grow. Scripture plays a role in this. It is not, to us, a "foundation." We are the foundation. Scripture merely allows us to see ourselves differently, to understand ourselves better, to observe areas of potential growth, and - at its best - to learn to connect to a deeper part of ourselves and confront the veil. This view of ourselves is clouded at best and completely inaccurate at worst if we adopt other people's insistence upon - or perspectives of - literalness.

Please share your thoughts on the Book of Mormon, and its role as a myth, on the Reform Mormon Discussion Group.

******************************************************
American Apocrapha and Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding can be purchased from Signature Books.

Sunstone offers, amongst other things, symposia and a magazine.

Remembering Haun's Mill

Sunday October 31, 2004

October 30 marks a solemn anniversary in Mormon history: "Haun's Mill." Mormonism was born and lived out its first 80 years in violence, more so than any other American religion. These few quick paragraphs from No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie retell the incident well:

That night a wounded man stumbled into Far West with news that froze the blood of every Saint. The settlement at Haun's Mill had been attacked by two hundred militiamen. The Mormons had fled into the blacksmith shop, which they thought would make an admirable fort, but it had proved in­stead to be a slaughterhouse. Great cracks yawned between the logs of the shop, and the Missourians, hiding behind trees, picked off the Mormons at their leisure as if they had been kill­ing cattle in a pen. When the women fled toward the brush, the men shot at them in derision. Old Thomas McBride fell wounded and surrendered his gun, whereupon one of the mob coolly hacked him to pieces with a corn-cutter.

After shooting down every Mormon they could see, the mob entered the blacksmith shop to finish off the wounded. They found nine-year-old Sardius Smith hiding under the bellows. His younger brother, shot through the hip, and pretending to be dead, heard the men drag Sardius out from his hiding-place. "Don't shoot," said one militiaman, "it's just a boy." "It's best to hive them when we can. Nits will make lice," a man replied, and placing his rifle near the boy's head, blew out his brains.

When darkness came, the women crept back to the scene of carnage. Of the thirty-eight men and boys in the camp, seven­teen had been slain and fifteen wounded. Fearful that the mob would return, the women lowered the dead into an unfinished well, hid the wounded in the woods, and then, stunned and desolate, made their way toward Far West.

As Reform Mormons entering the final few months of the year, when Daylight Savings Time makes the night seem longer, things get colder, and life seems to wither with winter, Haun's Mill reminds us of the trials and persecution that occurred in our heritage - and the courage of those who persevered.

Did you make resolutions at the beginning of the year? Where do they stand now? Have you completed them? Nothing you are trying to accomplish in your life is likely as challenging as the trails of our Mormon forbearers. We are a people formed and tested in some of the most violent and unjust situations in American history, and we survived and prospered. You have the blood of success in your veins.

When we remember Haun's Mill, we remember that we have been tested, and we have survived. When you light the Sabbath candles this weekend, remember that part of Restoration is completion. To get to completion, you may need to double your efforts, and "gird up your loins, fresh courage take." Remember that after Haun's Mill, the survivors went on to Deseret with the refrain "all is well." It is quintessentially Mormon to demonstrate that courage.

THE DEVIL & JOE SMITH: A Mormon Concept of Evil

Sunday, October 24, 2004

The Devil was very real for many people living on the western frontier in the early nineteenth century. The people of Palmyra, New York--among whom the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith came of age--were no exception.

For the money diggers, village seers and magicians--with whom the teenage Joseph and his father kept company--it was the Devil and his minions of evil spirits and spirit guardians who kept them from digging up the fabled buried treasures that would bring them financial salvation. For the revivalist ministers--with whom the teenage Joseph and his mother kept company--the devil was “the God of this world,” who led the proud and the worldly from the paths of Christian salvation.

Joseph’s earliest theological writings regarding the Devil (found in “The Book of Mormon”) reflect a mixture of both of the concepts, blending Protestant evangelicalism with early American folk-magic. In the earliest Mormon theology, the Devil tempted people to sin so that he might have power over them and make them eternally miserable. (For examples of this concept, see II Nephi 2:18; Alma 8:9, 12:17 and 15:17) When the wicked who were under the Devil’s control attempted to hide their treasures by burying them in the earth, a curse was placed upon the ground, causing the treasures to become “slippery” and it became impossible to dig them back up. (For examples see Helaman 12:18, 13:18-23; Mormon 1:18)

Belief in folk-magic, evil spirits and demonic possession were common among the first converts to Mormonism in upstate New York. In fact, the first claim that Joseph Smith could work miracles came as a result of a successful exorcism that Joseph--at the insistence of followers--performed on Newel Knight, who claimed to have been possessed by the Devil.

There is little evidence historically that Joseph Smith encouraged such activities. If any thing, the evidence indicates that he was uncomfortable with demands that he prove his prophetic calling by casting out devils and demons, or by performing supernatural feats.

As the years passed and Joseph’s theology evolved, so did his concept of the Devil. For Joseph Smith the Devil became something of a comic figure--a mixture of a traveling snake-oil salesman, a hypocritical protestant minister, a crooked lawyer and populist politician. This was reflected not only in the dramatic portions of the Temple Endowment, but in the political writings that Mormons produced as part of Joseph’s presidential campaign.

As comical a literary figure as the Devil became for Joseph, the Mormon Devil, nevertheless, became the embodiment of an evil far more threatening to modern civilization than lost faith or evil supernatural forces.

THE BIRTH OF THE CHRISTAIN DEVIL

Traditional and popular concepts of the devil are the product of orthodox Christianity. Before Christianity became the state religion of Rome, thus establishing monotheism throughout the western world, many gods were worshipped--with each god or goddess ruling over some aspect of existence.

For example, the Greek god Dionysus (Bacchus--according to the Romans) was the god of wine and song. He was often depicted as a satyr--the horned half goat, half human creatures who were associated with music and sex.

Christianity, by incorporating into its emerging theology much of Plato’s philosophy, looked up the natural world and physical pleasure as sinful and fallen, as under the control of the devil. With time images of Dionysus and satyrs were used in depictions of the devil. Thus was born the goat-footed and horned Satan of tradition. Like Dionysus before him, the Satan of Christianity became the embodiment of all that was carnal and sensual.

With the emergence of monotheism as the dominant world view, a new problem was born. As long as people believed that there were many gods warring and quarreling among themselves in the heavens, there was a theological reason for the calamities and evils that fell upon humanity. But when Christianity declared that there was only one God who created all things, people began to question why evil existed. After all, Christianity taught that God was all good. But evil and suffering were realities. Did God create them? And if he did create evil, how could one maintain that God was perfect and good.

In attempting to deal with such questions, Christianity turned to the devil who became something of a demigod--an eternal adversary of the one true God. Humanity’s woes and all evil could be traced back to Satan.

But if God is the creator of all things, why did he create the devil? Christians speculated that originally Satan was created as an angel--the brightest and most beautiful of all heavenly beings. But then Satan became filled with pride, tried to elevate himself above God and was thus cast from heaven into hell, where he ruled as the devil.

Even this did not solve monotheism’s dilemma. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, wouldn’t He have known from the beginning that Satan would rebel and fall? If He knew this, why did He create Satan in the first place? And why does He allow Satan to have such power over the world now?

Christianity has never been able to answer these questions to the satisfaction of most. The dilemma over the Devil continues. During the twentieth century, as the largest denominations within Mormonism reverted back to traditional Christian concepts and theology, the devil once again became the subject of many a Mormon sermon. In current LDS Testimony, Sunday School, Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, one often hears references to the world being under the control of theDevil; of the Devil conspiring to keep faithful Latter-Day Saints from attending the Temple and such.

A question arises: Is the Christian and modern Mormon concept of Satan supported by the writings of the Bible? Using only this book of scripture, a convincing case can be made that the Devil--as popularly depicted and traditionally conceived--is not be found in the Bible at all.

THE BIBLICAL SATAN

If an adult raised in the Christian or LDS tradition begins to read the Bible from the beginning for the first time, he may be shocked to find that he has to read for several hundred pages before coming across any mention of “devils.”

Note that the word is “devils”--plural, not singular. The word “devils” appears in Leviticus 17:7 and Deuteronomy 32:17 in reference to the ancient Israelites offering up sacrifices to false gods. THE devil--as traditionally conceived--is mentioned no where in the Old Testament.

The only place in the Old Testament where the character of Satan makes an actual appearance is in the opening passages of the Book of Job. (See Job 2:1-7) The scene is the court of Lord on a day when the sons of God (divine beings) “came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. “

There is no mention of Satan being a devil or the Devil; there’s no indication that Satan is evil, wicked or fallen. In fact, Satan is depicted as one of “the sons of God”--a divine being who is perfectly welcomed in the courts of heaven.

The Lord brags to Satan of Job’s virtue and integrity. Satan replies that if the Lord were to bring misfortune on Job, the man would curse Him. The Lord then delivers Job into Satan’s hand in order to test him.

The word “Satan” comes from the Hebrew for “slanderer” or “accuser.” In the ancient Israelite religion Satan was not evil, was not a devil, but a divine being who played the role of “prosecuting attorney” before the Lord. When one was brought before the Lord to be judged, it was Satan’s role to point out one’s sins and shortcomings, to bear record of the human condition before the throne of God.

In it is this context that Satan is mentioned in Psalms 109:6 and I Chronicles 21: 1---the only other two places in the entire Old Testament that make any reference to him.

One must read over two thirds of the Christian Bible before one finds any passages that reflect any concept of the Devil as traditionally conceived. These verses are found exclusively in the writings of the New Testament.

These writings were the product of a different age and civilization than were the writings of the Old Testament. The New Testament was the product of both Jewish and Gentile writers living in the first and second centuries of the common era. Being the products of the Roman world, these writers were influenced by the philosophies of ancient Greece--thus they tended to believe that there was a struggle going on between the forces of a fallen material/physical world and the immaterial/spiritual world of pure ideals. Though the Devil is mentioned only in New Testament writings and even though the influence of Greek thought can be detected, its interesting to note that the Devil is still associated primarily with the worship of false gods (like the devils mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) and with the role of “prosecuting attorney”-- or “the accuser of our brethren.” (See Revelation 12:7-10)

Though the Book of Revelation refers to Satan being cast out of heaven, it should be noted that this was seen as a future event. There is not a single passage within the entire Bible stating that Satan has already fallen or has already been cast from heaven.

One could reasonably conclude, therefore, that the entire Christian myth of the fall of Satan (a myth which many Mormons have, to a great extent, incorporated into their personal beliefs) can not be supported by an appeal to the Bible alone.

LUCIFER: A CASE OF MISTAKEN INDENTITY

Some readers of the Bible might point out that an important passage concerning the Devil has been overlooked. The passage is found in Isaiah:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14: 12-15)

Many Christians and Mormons mistakenly think that this verse is referring to the fall of the Devil; that as a result of the Devil’s desire to become more powerful than God, God cast him out of heaven into hell. This passage is the source of the Christian idea that the Devil feel as a result of pride and ambition.

Early in his career, Joseph accepted this traditional misinterpretation of this passage. Therefore in Doctrine & Covenant 76:26 writings he referred to the Devil as Lucifer, and in section 29:36-38 incorporated elements of Isaiah‘s language when discussing the Devil‘s fall.

But if one reads these verses within their proper context (meaning within the context of the chapter in which it appears) it becomes obvious that it is not the Devil who is being addressed, but the King of Babylon. The passage in which the verses appear begins with these words:

“That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon and say…” (Isaiah: 14:4)

The verses concerning the fall of Lucifer are part of this “proverb against the King of Babylon.” No where in the entire book of Isaiah is there any mention whatsoever of the Devil or Satan. In fact, the name "Lucifer" refers to the planet Venus--which appears in the sky as a bright star.

Instead of referring to the fall of an angel, this passage in Chapter 14 is an outcry against the King of Babylon, who through his pride attempted to conquer the world and exalt himself above the God of Israel and the stars of heaven. In the end, he would prove mortal, die and descend into the grave (the Hebrew word “shaol,” which is translated here as the word “hell”).

Thus the tradition that the Devil fell because of pride and arrogance is not supported by the Bible.

(Note: For more information of this passage of Isaiah and on the origin of the idea that Lucifer is the devil, see the reference and reading material links at the end of this lesson.)

THE DEVIL OF MORMONISM

As Mormon theology evolved, a new paradigm--or scheme of things--was laid out by Joseph Smith. In this new theology, the universe was uncreated. Existence had always existed. Opposition in all things had also existed.

There existed, too, an endless number of Gods stretching through the eternities. The God of this world--like all of the Gods--had once been human, had lived and died on an earth like our own. By experiencing opposition in all things and then choosing to grow and progress in knowledge and virtue, God became God. Humans (like God before them) could also travel this same path.

By also experiencing opposition in all things and choosing to grow in knowledge and virtue, every human being had the potential for Godhood.

If opposition in all things was an eternal state, then within the Mormon scheme of things there was no need for an answer to the questions, “Why Does Evil Exist? Why is there suffering?” There was no need for a God or a Devil upon whom one could affix blame or responsibility for these things. Opposition was simply a fact of existence and what mattered most were the choices an individual made in the face of opposition.

Thus Joseph Smith told a new myth regarding the “creation” and the fall of the Devil:

“…God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits…Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council…[In the Grand Council a contention arose.] The contention in heaven was this: Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved, and the devil said he could save them all. The grand council gave in for Jesus Christ. So the devil rebelled against God and fell, with all who put up their heads for him." (Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse)

Joseph went into greater detail in “The Pearl of Great Price”:

“ [Satan] came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.” (Moses 1: 1-3)

Mormon theology presents a radical new reason for Satan’s fall: he wanted to guarantee that no human being would choose a path other than one of righteousness. Satan wanted to make sure that not a single individual would be lost.

But in order to do this, the very nature of the individual would have to be altered. In short, humans would be denied their full humanity--with all their virtues and their vices. In turn this would have undermined the great scheme of things. According to Mormonism’s new paradigm:

"As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.”

Immersion in humanity is the path to Divinity. Divinity is the outgrowth of human choice. To change the nature of humanity would be to undermine their potential for Divinity.

THE ULTIMATE EVIL

The Mormon Satan became the embodiment of what could be considered--in light of the Mormon scheme of thing--the ultimate evil: the destruction of human Free Agency or Free Will.

In the Temple drama, Satan lays out his mode of operation:

“I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, false priests who and tyrant who destroy and tyrants who destroy, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!”

Especially in light of twentieth century world history as well as many of the forces at work in the world today, the ideas above can seem particularly frightening. Notice also that part of the Mormon Devil’s plan is the mixing of religious authority and power with governmental authority and power. The idea that government by the force of law (which is the use or threat of physical force) should attempt legislate ideals and values based on religious faith could be labeled “Satanic”--if one seriously considers what the Mormon Satan actually symbolizes. According to the Mormon Satan, individual freedom is seen as the enemy of universal salvation.

In older versions of the Temple drama, the Mormon Devil tries to undermine the Divine scheme by hiring a minister to teach false doctrines to the characters of Adam and Eve--who personify the average man and woman. Consider the following exchange between the character of Satan’s minister and Adam:

MINISTER: Do you believe in a God without body, parts, or passions; who sits on the top of a topless throne; whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere; who fills the universe, and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart; who is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace, not for any act of theirs, but by His good pleasure. Do you believe in such a great Being?

ADAM: I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.

MINISTER: That is the beauty of it. Perhaps you do not believe in a devil, and in that great hell, the bottomless pit, where there is a lake of fire and brimstone into which the wicked are cast, and where they are continually burning, but never consumed?

ADAM: I do not believe in any such place.

MINISTER: My dear friend, I am sorry for you.

What is enlightening here is not the specifics of the doctrines being taught but the internal contradictions that make them unfathomable. When Adam comments that his can’t comprehend what is being taught, the Devil’s minister replies, “That is the beauty of it.”

By attacking human reason, the Mormon Devil attempts to overthrow human freedom. When Adam fails to see the beauty of incomprehensible doctrines, the Devil’s minister moves on to another strategy: fear of a burning Hell and eternal damnation in the afterlife, if one doesn’t do as one is told in this life.

(What is also enlightening in about the above dialogue is that, in the context of the Temple drama, the traditional doctrine of eternal damnation and a burning Hell were presented as false doctrines. It is interesting to note that today there a millions of LDS Mormons who originally participated in the above Temple ceremony and yet who, nevertheless, believe in the doctrines of Hell and eternal damnation.)

REFORM MORMONISM

Reform Mormonism embraces the Mormon paradigm of eternity. Opposition in all things is simply a part of existence. Just as God is not needed to explain the existence of that which is good, neither is a Devil needed to explain the existence of that which is bad.

What is most important within Reform Mormonism is the Eternal Progression of the individual towards Godhood. It is Eternal Porgress--not salvation from hell or eternal damnation--that is the object of Reform Mormons. For one to progress, one must have complete freedom to explore and discover, to ask questions, to debate, to create, to try and fail, and to try again.

For this to occur, freedom is essential. The Mormon concept of Free Agency is fully embraced by Reform Mormons.

Consider these words--the lyrics of the very first hymn published in the very first Mormon hymnal in 1835:

Know this that every soul is free,
To choose his life and what he’ll be;
For this eternal truth is given,
That God will force no man to heaven.

He’ll call, persuade, direct him right;
Bless him with wisdom, love and light;
In nameless ways be good and kind;
But never force the human mind.

Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?
Mere animals and just as well

The beasts should think of heaven and hell.

Discussion Questions

Has belief in the Devil played a role in my moral development? If so, what has been the end effect?

What are the potential problems of blaming the ills of life on a devil?

What are the pitfalls of using fear of Hell, eternal damnation and the Devil as motivators for moral behavior? How is the concept of Eternal Progression a better incentive for moral behavior?

How comfortable am I with the Mormon idea that “there must needs be opposition in all things?”

How do I view opposition? Do I tend to see opposition as an evil to be overcome or as a “fact of life” that allows me to progress and grow?

What role has the concept of Free Agency played in my moral development?

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

Freedom and reason make us human. Take these away, what are we?
_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

References and Suggested Readings

Relating to this Gospel Doctrine Lesson

“The Book of Moses” Chapter 4:1-3 (The Pearl of Great Price)
http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/4



“The King Follett Discourse.” Joseph Smith last and greatest sermon, explaining the Mormon creation myth--including the reason for Satan’s fall.
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm


Sites explaining how the Isaiah passage concerning Lucifer has been misinterpreted as referring to the Devil:


“Lucifer Is Not An Old Testament Name for the Devil”
http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html


“Satan, Devil & Demons”
http://www.bbie.org/WrestedScriptures/B07Satan/Isaiah14v12-14.html


“Is Satan Lucifer?”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r9810q.htm


“Lucifer: Where did the Word Come From & What Is Its True Meaning”
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml


“Lucifer”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm


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


“In The Beginning, or Let the Insanity Begin.” This essay explores in detail how Joseph Smith’s rejection of creationism positively affects philosophy and concepts of morality.
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/i


Reform Mormonism homepage
http://www.reformmormonism.org/

THE ETERNAL MIND/ THE UNCREATED SELF: Reform Mormonism & the Individual

Sunday, October 17, 2004

In a eulogy delivered on April 7, 1845 (just weeks before his murder), the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith declared:

“I have another subject to dwell upon…that is, the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit. All men say God created it in the beginning. The very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it all ye ends of the world, for God has told me so. Before I get through, I will make a man appear a fool if he doesn't believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.”

Few of Joseph’s critics (then or now) as well as a sizeable portion of those who revered him as a prophet (then and now) were entirely comfortable with the “things more noble” that he taught that day. His critics have labeled his ideas blasphemy, while the majority of Mormons worldwide have either rejected his concepts outright or have attempted to water them down.

Joseph’s teachings regarding a plurality of Gods who were once human beings was indeed heretical and blasphemous by Christian standards. Attempts by some modern Mormons to reconcile this notion with the writings of such orthodox Christians as C.S. Lewis or early church fathers ring hollow, demonstrating ignorance or disregard of Christianity’s central doctrine: the existence of one God and one God only.

But history is filled with heresies regarding the existence and nature of the Divine. What set Joseph Smith apart from all others before him were his teachings on the nature of man.

THE UNCREATED MIND/ THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

Traditional western religion has taught that all existence is the production of a divine creation; that existence had a beginning, with God as the First Cause.

Towards the end of his prophetic career, Joseph Smith rejected this doctrine outright, declaring that existence was eternal and uncreated; that the world in which we lived was “organized” by the Gods from existing matter. (See “The Book of Abraham.”) In other words, existence itself is omnipotent. God, who is also eternal, exists and can only be understood within the greater context of existence as a whole.

This laid the groundwork for Joseph’s most radical and far-reaching teaching on the nature of man:

“We say that God himself is a self-existing God. Who told you so? It is correct enough, but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles?….

The mind of man is as immortal as God himself…. Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the spirit and body of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose I cut it in two; as the Lord lives, because it has a beginning, it would have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. Moreover, all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits. I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life that are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good. And when I tell you of these things that were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.”

THE ETERNAL MIND, THE FREE MIND

Joseph Smith taught that not only was our spirit/mind eternal and uncreated, it was also by nature free. In May 1833, Joseph declared:

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:29-30)

Being free by nature, each spirit may pursue what he or she values. The result is that each spirit is by nature truly an individual, with each progressing at his or her own rate, developing his or her abilities and talents to different, in different ways. While all share the same nature, that very nature ensures that each is a unique individual. Not having been created by God and being by nature free, each individual creates his or her own character.

These eternal differences in abilities, knowledge and character are referenced in the creation myth as laid out by Joseph Smith in his “Book of Abraham”:

“…if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all…

“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligence that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good.” (Abraham 3: 18-19, 22-23)

James E. Talmage wrote:

“So far as we can peer into the past by the aid of revealed light we can see that there was always a gradation of intelligence, and consequently of ability, among spirits…Individualism is an attribute of the soul, and as truly eternal as the soul itself.”

WHY DID GOD MAKE HIM THAT WAY?
INDIVIDUALISM & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

One idea that traditional western religion has spawned is the concept of that God, being the creator of all, bears ultimate responsibility for “the way someone is.” In short, many have shouldered God with responsibility for character traits that they have found less than admirable. This has the interesting result of not only relieving individuals of responsibility for certain aspects of their characters, but also giving these aspects the stamp of divine approval.
It is difficult to reconcile such traditional notions with the Mormon scheme of things as laid out by Joseph Smith.

Mormon theologian, B.H. Roberts wrote:

“The conception of the existence of uncreated, self-existent intelligences, who by the inherent nature of them are of various intelligences, who by the inherent nature of them are of various degrees on intelligence, and moral quality, differing from each other in many ways, yet alike in their eternity and their freedom…relieves God of the responsibility of the nature and moral status of intelligences in all stages of their development.”

True individuality and freedom means personal responsibility.

Discussion Questions:

How could the doctrine that God created each of us as we are be comforting at times? What is the price of such comfort?

How could the idea that we are eternal, uncreated, free agents be uncomfortable and disturbing at times? Considering your own character, situation and progress, what strength, solace and comfort can be found by accepting this idea?

ARE OUR SPIRITS THE LITERAL OFFSPRING OF GOD?

Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith’s teaching that the spirit of man is uncreated comes into conflict with what is probably the most widely believed doctrine among LDS Mormons: that our spirits were literally begotten by a heavenly father and a heavenly mother.


Yet, as Mormon scholar Dan Hale has pointed out, the origin of this particular doctrine
“…has remained somewhat obscure…there are no clear statements of the doctrine in any of the [LDS] church’s four standard work.”


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


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


Orson Pratt made it quite clear in this letter that the above idea was mere speculation on his part. Indeed, his notion that thirteen thousand years ago our spirits “came into existence or in other words received a spiritual organization” seems to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching that “Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.”


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


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

It should be remembered that it was the secret practice of polygamy that ultimately set in to motion the events that led to Joseph Smith’s arrest and murder by a mob. Joseph’s sudden death sent the church into chaos. The Apostles saw it as their calling to maintain order in the church by denying accusations of polygamy while at the same time secretly maintaining the practice. Eager to move the church our of the United States to Mexican territory where, free from U.S. law, they could practice polygamy openly, the Apostle began to lay a theological grounding for the doctrine. Pratt’s doctrine that the spirit was sexually generated by heavenly parents elevated human reproduction to a divine level. Since plural marriage allowed a man to have more biological children than he might have in a traditional monogamous marriage, Pratt’s doctrine served as the perfect justification for the practice.


Later Mormon theologians--realizing that this doctrine not only seemed to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching on the uncreated nature of the spirit, but also that the doctrine was not explicitly laid out anywhere in Mormon scripture--tried to effect a reconciliation of sorts. B.H. Roberts proposed that the “eternal intelligence” of the individual was the matter from which heavenly parents, through sexual union, organized the spirit/mind of the individual. But this proposal overlooks the fact that Joseph Smith made not differentiation between the concepts of “spirit,” “intelligence” and “mind.”


In his study, “The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought,” Van Hale concludes:


“In tracing the doctrine of spirit birth backward we find hundreds of references to it throughout Mormon literature, and the teaching that spirits originated through premortal procreation seems to have been the prevailing explanation ever since the Nauvoo period. What is surprising, however, is that none of Joseph Smith‘s recorded sermons--including those delivered in Nauvoo--teach the doctrine. In fact, several seem to teach a doctrine logically at odds with the belief that spirits are the literal offspring of God through premortal birth…Smith’s own doctrinal teaching was that the human spirit as a conscious entity is eternal--as eternal as God. It has no beginning and no end. It was not created; it is self-existing. God, being more advanced than the other spirits, organized them and instituted laws to give them the privilege to advance like himself…Smith used the terms ’spirit,’ ’soul,’ intelligence,’ and ’mind’ synonymously to describe the inchoate, indestructible essence of life. This summary is drawn from eight documentary sources--dating from 6 may 1833 to 7 April 1844. None of them suggest that God presides over the spirits because they are his begotten off spring, but because he was more intelligent, more advanced, than they and because he organized them into a premortal council…In conclusion, one of the most cherished doctrines of [LDS] Mormonism, that spirits are the literal offspring of God, has been taught by virtually all [LDS] Mormon leaders. The notable exception is probably Joseph Smith, whose direct statements teach a doctrine contrary to that of his closest associates, men and women who maintain that they were simply perpetuating what he had begun.”

Discussion Questions:

What affect has the doctrine that our spirits are the sexually generated offspring of our Heavenly Parents have upon the way men and women are viewed? What effect might this doctrine have upon a marriage, a family or a romantic relationship?


How has this doctrine been used to foster sexism? How has it been used as a justification for forcing particulars roles upon men and women--regardless of their individual abilities, preferences or circumstances?


How does sexism undermine the concept of individuality?


How might marriages, as well as familial and romantic relationships be strengthened by rejecting the doctrine the spirits are sexually begotten and by embracing Joseph Smith’s teaching that the human mind is by nature eternal, uncreated and free?

A RELIGION OF HUMAN FREEDOM

As serious study of Mormon history and doctrine progresses, Mormons of all stripes are beginning to see the virtue of Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding the eternal, uncreated nature of the human mind. Self-described “Cultural Mormon,” William Call has noted:


“…Momonism’s original ideas concerning the eternal, uncreated nature of the human soul are as pertinent today as they were when first given…At the heart of Joseph Smith’s teachings is the principle that that which is most sacred is the eternal, uncreated intelligence or soul of man and that no God or entity whatsoever has the power to either create, destroy or assume jurisdiction over the individual. This doctrine stands apart from Christian theology. It is the underlying and most essential doctrine of democracy. It is not only thoroughly in accord with the sentiments and attitudes of democratic societies, it provides the fundamental spiritual foundation upon which democracy is built. So long as Mormonism advocates and stands by this doctrine it will prosper…Mormonism, in its new, enlightened state, may lift itself up as the one viable religion remaining in today’s modern democratic world…A world religion…is one that provides the underlying spiritual foundation for the world’s people…A religion that provides the spiritual foundation for the forces of democracy that are spreading themselves over the whole world, which religion Mormonism alone can claim to be, could well become, in the centuries if not the decades to come, the religion of the whole world!”

Discussion Questions:

Looking back over human history, how has the doctrine of creation effected civilization? Have these effects been positive, negative or both? What has been the effect of creationism on science, philosophy, human rights and progress?


What effect have the concepts of individualism and human freedom had upon civilization, science, philosophy, human rights and progress?


How might Joseph Smith’s rejection of creationism and his theology of the eternal, uncreated nature of the human spirit effect civilization, science, philosophy, human rights and progress?

REFORM MORMONISM & THE ETERNAL INDIVIDUAL

Reform Mormonism is unique from other denominations within Mormonism in that it focuses--without any reservations---on the individual. Reform Mormonism does view God as an authority figure who issues commands which humans are duty-bound to obey; therefore it is a non-paternalistic form of Mormonism, that focuses on progression instead of rules. While accepting of all people regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, Reform Mormonism places ultimate responsibility for one’s personal progress on the individual who is by nature free.
For Reform Mormons these ideas resonate with Joseph Smith’s theology regarding the eternal, uncreated nature of the human spirit. In fact, what sets Reform Mormons apart from other Mormons is their willingness to take even the most radical concepts of Joseph Smith and other early Mormons and explore them openly and rationally, accepting and building upon those concepts that enhance human life, happiness and progress, while rejecting those which are irrational and could serve as foundations for ignorance, superstition and bigotry.

Discussion Questions:

How is my understanding of Mormonism affecting my view of the world, my relationships with others, as well as my progression and personal happiness?


Is my understanding of Mormonism the result of my own study, meditation and prayer, or is it something that I have merely accepted without question?


How has my understanding of Mormonism affected the way in which I view myself? Is my understanding of Mormonism at odds with what I know about myself?


How can I enhance my understanding of Mormonism so that it becomes a greater force for happiness and progress in my life and in the lives of my loved ones?

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

The human mind, the spirit, the immortal part is eternal, without beginning or end.; there was no creation about it. Man was in the beginning with God. Intelligence was not created, nor indeed can it be. Every intelligence is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

LINKS TO SUGGESTED READINGS & MATERIALS

related to this week's lesson

“The Book of Abraham” Chapter 3 (The Pearl of Great Price)
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3


The Doctrine & Covenants, Section 93
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/93


“The King Follett Discourse.” Joseph Smith last and greatest sermon, explaining the Mormon conception of the human mind/spirit as uncreated, eternal and coequal with God.
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm


"Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine"(edited by Gary James Bergera).
This excellent volume contains two excellent studies on the eternal uncreated nature of the human spirit: “The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought” by Van Hale, and “The Idea of Preexistence in Mormon Thought” by Blake T.Ostler.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/line.htm


"The Cultural Revolution: From the Decay of a Dying World Comes the Birth of a New Age" by William Call. A thought-provoking book of essays by a self-described Cultural Mormon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096347328X/qid=1098052014/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7370506-0179269?v=glance&s=books


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


“In The Beginning, or Let the Insanity Begin.” This essay explores in detail how Joseph Smith’s rejection of creationism positively affects philosophy and concepts of morality.
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/i


Reform Mormonism homepage
http://www.reformmormonism.org/