In response to the last lesson (which explored how the concept of time is related to forming values and morals), Mick, a Reform Mormon (non-LDS) from Germany writes:
“Yes, the article gives reason why our existence of aging, illness and mortality might have some higher purpose. But I am not sure whether the author’s premise (if we never experienced the limitations of time, we would feel no necessity to engage with the various aspects of existence, - just hanging around in an eternity perceived to be utterly boring) is really that much self-evident as he appears to think. (To be honest: I am very much unsure whether my Para phrasal interpretation of his opinion is correct.)
If we were able to think in terms of infinity (I think we are not), - would we then not also necessarily - or at least possibly - experience infinite curiosity and interest in countless matters?
It is understandable that we all wish to attribute some deeper meaning to our suffering in the limitations of time and space (and we certainly all suffer to a greater or lesser extent), - but is it really more than wishful thinking?
I mean, is there any, at least tiny evidence for the basic Reform Mormon concept of infinite individual existence? If the stream of memories, valuations and intentions that we all agree to call our individual `self´ is nothing more than the physiological and biochemical interplay of some billions of neurons (for which there is considerable scientific evidence as far as I know it), then why should there be reason to believe in a pre-conception and post-mortem individual existence?
Until now, I am unable to figure that out. May be there are some enlightening comments turning up soon.”
Because Mick makes some great points and asks questions that should not be ignored by Reform Mormons, I will devote the next several Gospel Doctrine lessons to the ideas in his letter.
I encourage all readers to join in the discussion by emailing their thoughts to: Reformmormons@aol.com.
I think that every point in Mick’s letter can be addressed by looking at two topics which will serve as the focus of the next few lesson. We will approach these two topics through the prism of Mormon history, and refer to the teachings of Joseph Smith as we explore possible answers.
The two topics we will examine are:
THE MORMON VIEW OF REALITY
And
THE MYTH OF ‘A HIGHER PURPOSE’ TO LIFE
Why consider these two topics? Because they directly relate to two questions that Mike asks:
1. “… is there any, at least tiny evidence for the basic Reform Mormon concept of infinite individual existence? [This refers to Joseph Smith’s teaching that the spirit is uncreated, existing before one’s birth and surviving one’s death.] If the stream of memories, valuations and intentions that we all agree to call our individual `self´ is nothing more than the physiological and biochemical interplay of some billions of neurons (for which there is considerable scientific evidence as far as I know it), then why should there be reason to believe in a pre-conception and post-mortem individual existence? “
2. Isn’t our wish to attribute some deeper meaning to our suffering in the limitations of time and space really no more than wishful thinking?
I’ll begin by offering an answer to the second question and then, over the course the next few lessons, explain how it relates to the first.
“WISHFUL THINKING “ : THE INVENTION OF A “HIGHER PURPOSE”
“Isn’t our wish to attribute some deeper meaning to our suffering in the limitations of time and space really no more than wishful thinking?”
My answer to this question is an emphatic, “Yes.” The idea that there is a higher purpose to the conditions of life on earth is indeed nothing more than wishful thinking.
From my reflections on the Mormonism’s New Paradigm (the distinct theology that Joseph Smith developed later in his life), I reject the very idea that there is a “higher purpose” to life, and I do it for this reason: implicit in the idea of “higher purpose to life” is the idea that there is something “higher than life.” The idea that there is a “higher purpose to existence” implies that there must be an existence of greater value than this one.
I am convinced that a careful study of Joseph Smith’s writings and teachings (in chronological order) indicates that as he matured in his understanding of things, he began laying down principles that would eventually undermine the “wishful thinking” regarding a supposed “higher purpose.”
THE REALITY OF THE WORLD IN WHICH JOSEPH SMITH LIVED
Human beings are creative. Taking the elements around him, primitive man organized them into weapons, tools, clothing, housing, art objects,--and eventually he created communities, governments and laws. Realizing that society was the product of their creativity, primitive people looked at the natural world and assumed that the natural order--like the social order--was created by intelligent beings like themselves.
The time into which Joseph Smith was born (1805) and during which Mormonism was introduced, was unique in the annals of recorded history.
For hundreds of years, philosophers, artists and scientists had been questioning the basic assumptions of traditional religion. Not only specific religions, but the very concept of an all-powerful God who created and controlled all existence was itself being not only questioned, by also rejected. The rise of science and the valuing of rational thought over faith and mere belief threatened the basic premises of traditional religions.
Throughout all of recorded history, priests and prophets has taught that society would only prosper, that human life could only be preserved, if people put their faith in God and obeyed without question His commands.
But as the Dark Ages (an age of faith) gave way to the religious skepticism and scientific methods of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (“The Age of Reason”), just the opposite took place: societies became more stable, people became more productive and prosperous, while human life not only increased in length but also improved in quality. The ancient Greek concept of democracy and the ideals of the ancient Roman republic were revived and joined with a radical new concept: the Natural Rights of the individual. One result of this philosophic revolution was the formation of free, representative republics--such as the United States.
Joseph Smith was a first generation American. (Both of his parents were born before the American colonies declared its independence from England and therefore had technically been subjects of the British crown.)
During Joseph’s youth, American society was in the middle of a huge philosophic shift.
Everywhere the positive fruits of the scientific approach to reality, of reason and individualism were evident. Only a small minority of Americans were officially affiliated with a church or religious organization, and many in this minority felt that their faith was threatened by rise of science and secular thought. The “rugged individualism” that was necessary to survive and prosper on the American frontier was often at odds with the communitarian values of traditional religion. Those who seemed to prosper the most in the new nation were those who relied on their own understanding of things, who tended to be skeptical of traditional religion, who were willing to “do it themselves” rather than pray for God to do it for them. In the American cities and on the frontier, a new type of character was emerging (a character that was often described as “rough,” “un-hewed,” and “uniquely American“), and while the majority of people who embodied this new character type were un-churched, they were still deeply devoted to the idea of God--though the nature of this God began to change into a Deity more in keeping with the demands of human survival in the natural world.
Those who remained devoted to traditional religious concepts (the forefathers of current Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism), began to view secular thought, scientific enquiry and material prosperity as threats to faith--which, indeed, they were. To counteract their influence, Christian revivalism began--resulting in the frenzied, emotion-laden Camp Meetings to which young Joseph Smith was taken by his devout mother, Lucy.
A popular theme of these meetings was that “worldly” learning (education) and prosperity, individual industry and accomplishments were essentially meaningless unless they were used in the service of God. Indeed, education, prosperity and individual accomplishment could lead to pride, to the “dangerous” idea that one was master of one’s own fate, with no need to rely on God or the “grace and mercies of Christ.” Accomplishment could easily led to sin and damnation unless it was used in the service of a “higher good.”
Joseph Smith’s family was deeply divided. A growing majority of scholars and historians are now of the opinion that his mother was bipolar and that her mood swings and debilitating bouts of depression (which profoundly effected her family) were made worse by her obsession with religion and her worries regarding “the salvation of her eternal soul.”
Joseph’s father (Joseph Smith, Sr.) was irreligious. Raised by a religious skeptic who often quoted Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Joseph Smith Sr. nevertheless took an interest in folk-magic, which he approached as a pseudo-science. On top of this, the man also exhibited all the symptoms of alcoholism--which was a much more wide-spread problem in early 19th century America than commonly believed. He refused to attend religious meetings with his wife, and was deeply critical of the local clergy men in which she put her trust.
The philosophic divide between Joseph’s parents echoed the philosophic divide in American society at the time. Joseph Smith’s career as a theologian was born of a desire to reconcile the skepticism and rationalism of the new century to orthodox faith of the past. The result was The Book of Mormon, which as a theological document is in harmony with traditional Christianity--mostly--but here are a few important exceptions. In the last sections of the book that Joseph dictated (II Nephi), some radical new concepts are laid down that actually undermine traditional Christianity--chief among these, is the doctrine that the so-called “Fall” of Adam and Eve was, in actuality, a good thing. This doctrine, laid out in chapter two of II Nephi, turns the Christian view of the natural world on its head.
In essence, Joseph Smith taught that Adam “fell upwards,” that eating the Fruit of the Knowledge resulted in human progress--not damnation in Hell. He taught that the universe was by nature complex, that in the natural order there was “opposition in all things,” and that Adam and Eve’s eyes had to be opened (by eating the Fruit of Knowledge) so that they could discern the nature of things and the opposition. Only in this way could Adam and Eve make choices, therefore effecting their own destiny as God intended,
This seemingly simply reinterpretation of the Adam and Eve myth set the groundwork for Joseph’s eventual rejection of not only ever major tenant of orthodox Christianity, but also of monotheism itself.
At the beginning of his career, Joseph publicized his ideas by resorting to a device used in the Camp Meetings: he claimed to have seen visions, to have been visited by angels, to have had ideas revealed to him by supernatural means. The ploy worked--but only for a time. The earliest converts to Mormonism were more attracted by the claims of supernatural activity and Christian certainty than by the new theology Joseph was revealing. In the first years of Mormon history, converts often rose up in defiance of Joseph, claiming their own revelations by the same means he originally employed: dreams, visions, the use of seer-stones and magical instruments. The result of these conflicting claims was confusion, and sometimes--this being frontier society--the confusion threatened to break out into violence.
For the first few years, Joseph combated the confusion in the only way he knew how: he simply claimed to have had another supernatural revelation that trumped the claims of his adversaries. Perhaps he would have continued down this road if --as his detractors then and now assert--his objective was to set himself up as absolute dictator of a church.
But Joseph’s life is evidence of another objective altogether. Joseph’s most direct influence in American history (indeed, the influence of 19th century Mormonism itself in American history) was as a colonizer, as a builder of cities. In Kirtland, Ohio and Independence, Missouri, his attempts at city building failed; but in creating the city of Nauvoo, Illinois, he succeeded.
What had changed between the early days of Ohio and Missouri Mormonism and the later days of Illinois Mormonism?
What had changed was Joseph’s approach to understanding the nature of reality and his way of presenting and defending his ideas.
In Ohio and Missouri, fresh from his supernatural claims regarding The Book of Mormon, Joseph taught solely by revelation. There may have been some reasoning in the revelations he dictated to his scribes, but what gave them a sense of authority was the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord…” The message was clear: this was not Joseph speaking by virtue of his own reasoning, but God issuing commands.
In all of recorded history there is no objective evidence that a God ever built a city, ran a business, or established a school (not even a seminary or school of theology).
But this is exactly what Joseph and the Mormons were doing. They were colonizers, frontier people and city-builders. These activities are human endeavors, the success of which demand rational thought, “worldly knowledge,“ and political maneuvering rather than absolute declarations of Divine will.
In Kirtland, Joseph Smith began to educate himself--first through private tutoring under the renowned frontier evangelist ,Sydney Rigdon ,who, along with his congregation of several hundred Ohioans, had converted to Mormonism--giving the infant movement its first major jolt in growth. A Mormon seminary called The School of the Prophets, and modeled after those of mainstream Protestant denominations, was founded in Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph and the Mormon elders were instructed by non-Mormons in Hebrew and ancient languages, as well as the basics of contemporary Biblical criticism. Joseph even hired a Jewish rabbi to instruct him and the Mormon elders.
Because Joseph had already (in The Book of Mormon) rejected the idea that the Bible (or any other book of scripture) was infallible, he enthusiastically embraced what might be called the “higher Biblical criticism” of his day. He began approaching theological issues by examining the social and historical context of Biblical texts, by exploring the various shades of meaning a particular word might have in Hebrew and Greek. He began to think more like a scholar--or at least, a serious student.
During the last years of his life in Nauvoo, Illinois, he only resorted to dictating revelations (“Thus saith the Lord..”) when he and his followers were at logger-heads (as in the case of polygamy and his liberal views on human sexuality and “non-traditional families”). In his King Follett Discourse (which laid out his radical new theology), Joseph speaks as a philosopher, staking his claims to being a true prophet on his ability to reason soundly.
Of the 134 sections in The Doctrine & Covenants (the most read volume of Joseph’s post-Book of Mormon teachings), the vast majority were dictated in the early years of Mormonism, between 1828 and 1835. Nearly all of these contain the phrase “Thus saith the Lord,” and have to do with the day to day affairs of governing small church. Of The Doctrines & Covenant’s 134 sections, only nine were dictated during Smith‘s five years in Nauvoo. It is in these sections that one finds Mormonism‘s most profound theological innovations, and nearly all of these sections are extracts from Joseph’s journals, letters and sermons, rather than “Thus saith the Lord” revelations.
Joseph evolved from a village seer whose claims were steeped in the mystical and supernatural, into theologian/philosopher who presented his ideas as his own and argued rationally in their defense. He evolved from someone who tried to reconcile the natural world to pre-existing idea of a supernatural Supreme Being into someone who finally insisted that one’s beliefs and one’s ideas regarding God must be consistent with the reality of the natural world.
In short, he evolved from a religious fraud into an authentic prophet.
THE MYTH OF “A HIGHER PURPOSE.”
What does any of this have to do with the subject of this lesson?
Plenty. As I pointed out earlier, the idea of “a higher purpose” to life implies that there is something of higher value than life. Traditional religions of both the East and West accept this notion, which is why so often religious fundamentalism results on a devaluing of human life and violence in the service of some “higher purpose.”
Joseph Smith taught “men are that they might have joy.” (II Nephi 2:25) He also wrote, “Happiness is the object of our creation.”
What this simple teaching in effect states is that human life is an end in itself. This resonates with the secular idea that humans by nature have certain inherent rights--the first being a right to their own life and person, and a right to pursue their own happiness. (This, of course, is in opposition to the idea that one is born indebted to God or whatever powers may be, due to Original Sin or bad Karma.)
If human life is an end in itself, if “happiness is the object of our existence,” then there is no need for a higher purpose.
Morality is not related to the dictates of a higher power or being, is not bound up in hopes for some future existence in an ethereal “afterlife,“ (what early Mormon Parley P. Pratt called “an immaterial fairyland” ). Instead, morality becomes the rational means of preserving human life on earth, and uses existence as we now know and experience it as its point of reference. Ultimate Truth within Mormonism has nothing to do with “a higher purpose” or “the way things should be.” Instead “Truth is a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be.”
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
What could be the negative results of believing that life on earth must serve some higher purpose?
What theological and philosophical concepts are implied when one speaks of a “higher purpose” to life, to existence?
What could be the positive results of viewing each human life as an end in itself, of accepting Joseph Smith’s idea that “happiness is the object of our creation?”
How has the idea of “a higher purpose” effected your thinking, your actions and the quality of your life--positively and negatively?
Join in the discussion by emailing your thoughts to: reformmormons@aol.com
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Saturday, July 02, 2005
VALUES, TIME & ETERNITY
This is the fourth in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality, ethics and values. In previous lessons we explored how the Mormon doctrine that God was once human and that humans may progress to Godhood, undermines the traditional belief that God or some other supreme authority decrees what is moral or immoral. We also explored how Mormonism’s radical doctrine of Free Agency (Free Will) undermines the popular concept that we are free merely to obey or disobey the commandments of God; that Free Agency means that each individual--not God--must decided what his or her values will be.
In this lesson, we will explore what conditions are required for us to chose our values. We will do this by referring to he Mormon concept of Pre-existence as well as the Mormon story of Adam and Eve as contained in Mormon scripture and in the Reform Mormon Endowment Ceremony.
IF YOU HAD FOREVER
Imagine a world without pain, discomfort, sickness, injury or death. Imagine not only that these things are no more, but also imagine that they never existed; that the very concepts are unknown to you. Imagine eternity stretching out before you.
If you had forever to do whatever you wanted, what would you want to do now? What would you value today?
Is there a book you want to read? Would you read it today, or would you wait until tomorrow, next week, next year or a thousand years from now? Since you are eternal and have forever, what is the rush? What difference would it make?
What about travel? Would you take off today or wait until some point in the future when perhaps you felt more like traveling?
Consider any human endeavor. If one had forever to live, what would be the hurry--or even the point--in doing it? Everything could be put off indefinitely with absolutely no negative results. If you had forever, the concept of time would be meaningless because for you time would never run out.
PRE-EXISTENCE & PROGRESS
Mormon doctrine holds that some aspect of the individual is eternal and co-equal with God; some aspect of the individual existed “before the foundation of the world.” Before our existence in this world, there was a Pre-existence.
In the Mormon story of the Pre-existence, our Heavenly Parents saw that this eternal aspect of each of us was capable of progressing eternally; of growing in knowledge until we might become like God. In short, we might become Gods ourselves and continue to progress ever onward.
But in order to obtain knowledge, we had to progress onward to the next stage of things--which meant “coming to earth and obtaining a body”--to use a popular LDS Mormon phrase.
ADAM & EVE IN TIME
In Mormon tradition, the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the individual’s life on earth.
In the beginning, Adam and Eve were placed on earth as eternal beings; they had physical bodies but were not subject to pain, injury, disease or death. Living under the watchful eye of God in the Garden of Eden, they were innocent (and ignorant) like children. “The Book of Mormon,” in II Nephi, chapter 2, teaches that as long as Adam and Eve continued in this condition, they were unable to change or progress. In fact, were they to continue in this condition forever, the very purpose for their being on earth would be frustrated.
In the Reform Mormon Endowment Ceremony, Adam and Eve see that while they are in the Garden (where all of their needs seem to be immediately met), one day is much the same as the next. With no variation in their situation, with no end in sight, they merely exist.
When they ask God about this, they are shown the Tree of Knowledge. When they eat the fruit, they’re eyes are opened and they begin to see the garden and the world quite differently. They realize that they are subject to disease, injury and eventually death.
With this new understanding, the concept of time has meaning to them. One day is suddenly different from the next. Because they no longer “have forever,” they must use their Free Agency to decide how they will use their time. Because they must now see to their own needs, how they chose to use heir time--what they will value--becomes the crucial issue they face and the defining aspect of their moral development.
“ADAM FELL THAT MEN MIGHT BE”
“The Book of Mormon” teaches that “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”
Our humanity is manifested when we realize that we do not live in a Garden of Eden where all of our needs and wants are instantly satisfied; when our eyes are opened and we see the nature of relationship with the world in which we live; when we realize that one day we will die; that we survive and prosper by our own efforts; that our emotional state (be it joyous or not) is the result of what we think, say and do--in short, that our joy is dependent upon our values.
Knowing that we are mortal, that we will one day die is what gives this day meaning and value. Because our survival is not guaranteed, each of us must determine which resources and endeavors have the greater value as far as survival is concerned. Since we don’t have forever, we must decided for ourselves which talents and abilities we will develop at a given time. Because we are bound by the limitations of time and space, we must decide upon which endeavors and relationships we will focus.
In short, it is only by realizing that we are subject to the conditions of time and place, that any thing can have value to us. It is through this realization that our true humanity is manifested; it is through our response to our own mortality, that our morality (our values) is revealed.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions regarding this lesson to:
reformmormons@aol.com
ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
In this lesson, we will explore what conditions are required for us to chose our values. We will do this by referring to he Mormon concept of Pre-existence as well as the Mormon story of Adam and Eve as contained in Mormon scripture and in the Reform Mormon Endowment Ceremony.
IF YOU HAD FOREVER
Imagine a world without pain, discomfort, sickness, injury or death. Imagine not only that these things are no more, but also imagine that they never existed; that the very concepts are unknown to you. Imagine eternity stretching out before you.
If you had forever to do whatever you wanted, what would you want to do now? What would you value today?
Is there a book you want to read? Would you read it today, or would you wait until tomorrow, next week, next year or a thousand years from now? Since you are eternal and have forever, what is the rush? What difference would it make?
What about travel? Would you take off today or wait until some point in the future when perhaps you felt more like traveling?
Consider any human endeavor. If one had forever to live, what would be the hurry--or even the point--in doing it? Everything could be put off indefinitely with absolutely no negative results. If you had forever, the concept of time would be meaningless because for you time would never run out.
PRE-EXISTENCE & PROGRESS
Mormon doctrine holds that some aspect of the individual is eternal and co-equal with God; some aspect of the individual existed “before the foundation of the world.” Before our existence in this world, there was a Pre-existence.
In the Mormon story of the Pre-existence, our Heavenly Parents saw that this eternal aspect of each of us was capable of progressing eternally; of growing in knowledge until we might become like God. In short, we might become Gods ourselves and continue to progress ever onward.
But in order to obtain knowledge, we had to progress onward to the next stage of things--which meant “coming to earth and obtaining a body”--to use a popular LDS Mormon phrase.
ADAM & EVE IN TIME
In Mormon tradition, the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the individual’s life on earth.
In the beginning, Adam and Eve were placed on earth as eternal beings; they had physical bodies but were not subject to pain, injury, disease or death. Living under the watchful eye of God in the Garden of Eden, they were innocent (and ignorant) like children. “The Book of Mormon,” in II Nephi, chapter 2, teaches that as long as Adam and Eve continued in this condition, they were unable to change or progress. In fact, were they to continue in this condition forever, the very purpose for their being on earth would be frustrated.
In the Reform Mormon Endowment Ceremony, Adam and Eve see that while they are in the Garden (where all of their needs seem to be immediately met), one day is much the same as the next. With no variation in their situation, with no end in sight, they merely exist.
When they ask God about this, they are shown the Tree of Knowledge. When they eat the fruit, they’re eyes are opened and they begin to see the garden and the world quite differently. They realize that they are subject to disease, injury and eventually death.
With this new understanding, the concept of time has meaning to them. One day is suddenly different from the next. Because they no longer “have forever,” they must use their Free Agency to decide how they will use their time. Because they must now see to their own needs, how they chose to use heir time--what they will value--becomes the crucial issue they face and the defining aspect of their moral development.
“ADAM FELL THAT MEN MIGHT BE”
“The Book of Mormon” teaches that “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”
Our humanity is manifested when we realize that we do not live in a Garden of Eden where all of our needs and wants are instantly satisfied; when our eyes are opened and we see the nature of relationship with the world in which we live; when we realize that one day we will die; that we survive and prosper by our own efforts; that our emotional state (be it joyous or not) is the result of what we think, say and do--in short, that our joy is dependent upon our values.
Knowing that we are mortal, that we will one day die is what gives this day meaning and value. Because our survival is not guaranteed, each of us must determine which resources and endeavors have the greater value as far as survival is concerned. Since we don’t have forever, we must decided for ourselves which talents and abilities we will develop at a given time. Because we are bound by the limitations of time and space, we must decide upon which endeavors and relationships we will focus.
In short, it is only by realizing that we are subject to the conditions of time and place, that any thing can have value to us. It is through this realization that our true humanity is manifested; it is through our response to our own mortality, that our morality (our values) is revealed.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions regarding this lesson to:
reformmormons@aol.com
ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Sunday, May 29, 2005
FREE AGENCY or SIMPLY FREE TO DO AS WE’RE TOLD?
This is the third in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality and ethics. In the previous lesson we explored how the Mormon doctrine that God was once human and that humans may progress to Godhood, undermines the traditional belief that God or some other supreme authority decrees what is moral or immoral. In this lesson we will begin to explore the Mormon doctrine of Free Agency (Free Will) and its relationship to morality and values.
WE ARE MERELY FREE TO CHOSE BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE?
Since Mormons were the most persecuted religious minority in American history, Mormons themselves have a deep love for freedom of religion. Yet even while sincerely revering individual liberty, few Mormons understand just how radical is the Mormon doctrine of individual Free Agency (Free Will.) Indeed, Mormonism is unique among the religions of the world with regard to this subject since it views the individual not as a creation of God but as a being who shares a common nature with God. Just as God’s Free Agency was not given to Him by another but is simply inherent in His nature, so human freedom was not given by God but is simply inherent in human nature.
Despite this radical belief, many Mormons tend to view individual Free Agency in much the same way as do believers in other Christian denominations: God determines what is moral and issues commandments accordingly, but leaves each individual free to either obey (reaping blessings) or disobey (suffering punishment or loss.)
Free Agency is viewed as the freedom to accept or rejecting a previously divinely ordained universal good. But since Mormonism’s radically new vision of a limited God who was once human undermines this limited view of Free Agency is limited and incomplete at best. At its worst, traditional views of Free Agency actually undermine the foundations for a truly moral character.
LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR
Imagine that you are living under the rule of one of the absolute dictators that rose to power over the past century. The dictator, wielding absolute power, issues a law; he declares all citizens are free to decide if they will obey the law or not; those who obey, will be left alone to live their lives; those who disobey will be imprisoned, exiled or executed.
Living under such a system, you are in reality only free do to as you’re told; to disobey is to suffer some sort of punishment. Under such a system, your obedience or disobedience has nothing whatsoever to do with your character, with your personal objectives or goals for your life, with the people or things that you may value. In fact, the so-called “freedom” you have under such a government (the freedom to do as you’re commanded or suffer punishment) would probably undermine your personal objectives, goals and values.
Even among those religions that revere human freedom, God is still imagined to be a sort of cosmic dictator; a supreme authority Who rules according to His will and unto Whom the individual can render only obedience or disobedience.
QUESTIONS:
What does life under a dictatorship have in common with the traditional notion of an all-powerful God who gives salvation, exaltation or damnation to individuals based on their obedience to His will?
Can a dictator determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can any outside force or power determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can God?
What role does one’s personal values and loves play in living a moral and ethical life? What role does integrity play in living a moral and ethical life?
Why would it be difficult to live a life of integrity under a dictatorship or in a society where what one should value and love has already been determined by the authorities in charge?
Why might it be difficult to live a life of integrity if one believes that God has already determined what one should value and love?
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
WE ARE MERELY FREE TO CHOSE BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE?
Since Mormons were the most persecuted religious minority in American history, Mormons themselves have a deep love for freedom of religion. Yet even while sincerely revering individual liberty, few Mormons understand just how radical is the Mormon doctrine of individual Free Agency (Free Will.) Indeed, Mormonism is unique among the religions of the world with regard to this subject since it views the individual not as a creation of God but as a being who shares a common nature with God. Just as God’s Free Agency was not given to Him by another but is simply inherent in His nature, so human freedom was not given by God but is simply inherent in human nature.
Despite this radical belief, many Mormons tend to view individual Free Agency in much the same way as do believers in other Christian denominations: God determines what is moral and issues commandments accordingly, but leaves each individual free to either obey (reaping blessings) or disobey (suffering punishment or loss.)
Free Agency is viewed as the freedom to accept or rejecting a previously divinely ordained universal good. But since Mormonism’s radically new vision of a limited God who was once human undermines this limited view of Free Agency is limited and incomplete at best. At its worst, traditional views of Free Agency actually undermine the foundations for a truly moral character.
LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR
Imagine that you are living under the rule of one of the absolute dictators that rose to power over the past century. The dictator, wielding absolute power, issues a law; he declares all citizens are free to decide if they will obey the law or not; those who obey, will be left alone to live their lives; those who disobey will be imprisoned, exiled or executed.
Living under such a system, you are in reality only free do to as you’re told; to disobey is to suffer some sort of punishment. Under such a system, your obedience or disobedience has nothing whatsoever to do with your character, with your personal objectives or goals for your life, with the people or things that you may value. In fact, the so-called “freedom” you have under such a government (the freedom to do as you’re commanded or suffer punishment) would probably undermine your personal objectives, goals and values.
Even among those religions that revere human freedom, God is still imagined to be a sort of cosmic dictator; a supreme authority Who rules according to His will and unto Whom the individual can render only obedience or disobedience.
QUESTIONS:
What does life under a dictatorship have in common with the traditional notion of an all-powerful God who gives salvation, exaltation or damnation to individuals based on their obedience to His will?
Can a dictator determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can any outside force or power determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can God?
What role does one’s personal values and loves play in living a moral and ethical life? What role does integrity play in living a moral and ethical life?
Why would it be difficult to live a life of integrity under a dictatorship or in a society where what one should value and love has already been determined by the authorities in charge?
Why might it be difficult to live a life of integrity if one believes that God has already determined what one should value and love?
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
FREE AGENCY or SIMPLY FREE TO DO AS WE’RE TOLD?
This is the third in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality and ethics. In the previous lesson we explored how the Mormon doctrine that God was once human and that humans may progress to Godhood, undermines the traditional belief that God or some other supreme authority decrees what is moral or immoral. In this lesson we will begin to explore the Mormon doctrine of Free Agency (Free Will) and its relationship to morality and values.
WE ARE MERELY FREE TO CHOSE BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE?
Since Mormons were the most persecuted religious minority in American history, Mormons themselves have a deep love for freedom of religion. Yet even while sincerely revering individual liberty, few Mormons understand just how radical is the Mormon doctrine of individual Free Agency (Free Will.) Indeed, Mormonism is unique among the religions of the world with regard to this subject since it views the individual not as a creation of God but as a being who shares a common nature with God. Just as God’s Free Agency was not given to Him by another but is simply inherent in His nature, so human freedom was not given by God but is simply inherent in human nature.
Despite this radical belief, many Mormons tend to view individual Free Agency in much the same way as do believers in other Christian denominations: God determines what is moral and issues commandments accordingly, but leaves each individual free to either obey (reaping blessings) or disobey (suffering punishment or loss.)
Free Agency is viewed as the freedom to accept or rejecting a previously divinely ordained universal good. But since Mormonism’s radically new vision of a limited God who was once human undermines this limited view of Free Agency is limited and incomplete at best. At its worst, traditional views of Free Agency actually undermine the foundations for a truly moral character.
LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR
Imagine that you are living under the rule of one of the absolute dictators that rose to power over the past century. The dictator, wielding absolute power, issues a law; he declares all citizens are free to decide if they will obey the law or not; those who obey, will be left alone to live their lives; those who disobey will be imprisoned, exiled or executed.
Living under such a system, you are in reality only free do to as you’re told; to disobey is to suffer some sort of punishment. Under such a system, your obedience or disobedience has nothing whatsoever to do with your character, with your personal objectives or goals for your life, with the people or things that you may value. In fact, the so-called “freedom” you have under such a government (the freedom to do as you’re commanded or suffer punishment) would probably undermine your personal objectives, goals and values.
Even among those religions that revere human freedom, God is still imagined to be a sort of cosmic dictator; a supreme authority Who rules according to His will and unto Whom the individual can render only obedience or disobedience.
QUESTIONS:
What does life under a dictatorship have in common with the traditional notion of an all-powerful God who gives salvation, exaltation or damnation to individuals based on their obedience to His will?
Can a dictator determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can any outside force or power determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can God?
What role does one’s personal values and loves play in living a moral and ethical life? What role does integrity play in living a moral and ethical life?
Why would it be difficult to live a life of integrity under a dictatorship or in a society where what one should value and love has already been determined by the authorities in charge?
Why might it be difficult to live a life of integrity if one believes that God has already determined what one should value and love?
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
WE ARE MERELY FREE TO CHOSE BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & DISOBEDIENCE?
Since Mormons were the most persecuted religious minority in American history, Mormons themselves have a deep love for freedom of religion. Yet even while sincerely revering individual liberty, few Mormons understand just how radical is the Mormon doctrine of individual Free Agency (Free Will.) Indeed, Mormonism is unique among the religions of the world with regard to this subject since it views the individual not as a creation of God but as a being who shares a common nature with God. Just as God’s Free Agency was not given to Him by another but is simply inherent in His nature, so human freedom was not given by God but is simply inherent in human nature.
Despite this radical belief, many Mormons tend to view individual Free Agency in much the same way as do believers in other Christian denominations: God determines what is moral and issues commandments accordingly, but leaves each individual free to either obey (reaping blessings) or disobey (suffering punishment or loss.)
Free Agency is viewed as the freedom to accept or rejecting a previously divinely ordained universal good. But since Mormonism’s radically new vision of a limited God who was once human undermines this limited view of Free Agency is limited and incomplete at best. At its worst, traditional views of Free Agency actually undermine the foundations for a truly moral character.
LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR
Imagine that you are living under the rule of one of the absolute dictators that rose to power over the past century. The dictator, wielding absolute power, issues a law; he declares all citizens are free to decide if they will obey the law or not; those who obey, will be left alone to live their lives; those who disobey will be imprisoned, exiled or executed.
Living under such a system, you are in reality only free do to as you’re told; to disobey is to suffer some sort of punishment. Under such a system, your obedience or disobedience has nothing whatsoever to do with your character, with your personal objectives or goals for your life, with the people or things that you may value. In fact, the so-called “freedom” you have under such a government (the freedom to do as you’re commanded or suffer punishment) would probably undermine your personal objectives, goals and values.
Even among those religions that revere human freedom, God is still imagined to be a sort of cosmic dictator; a supreme authority Who rules according to His will and unto Whom the individual can render only obedience or disobedience.
QUESTIONS:
What does life under a dictatorship have in common with the traditional notion of an all-powerful God who gives salvation, exaltation or damnation to individuals based on their obedience to His will?
Can a dictator determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can any outside force or power determine what you will value, love or find relevant? Can God?
What role does one’s personal values and loves play in living a moral and ethical life? What role does integrity play in living a moral and ethical life?
Why would it be difficult to live a life of integrity under a dictatorship or in a society where what one should value and love has already been determined by the authorities in charge?
Why might it be difficult to live a life of integrity if one believes that God has already determined what one should value and love?
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
DISCUSSION & EMAILS ON THIS WEEK'S LESSON
In response to this week's lesson, "An All-powerful Being: Does God Determine What is Right and Wrong," the following email was received:
"Your last lesson on God was one of the best yet. Even though its just common sense....the whole concept of God's place in the natural world seems a tad radical when its written down in black and white. You write with such a sense of balance though, and anyone with half a logical cell in their brain would have to bow to your reasoning. You take what modern man must know and feel in his soul, but is afraid (for what ever reason) to put into words...and you do just that. I wish your lessons and articles could reach a greater audience, more readers than just those looking into the Reform Mormon movement. Keep up the good work!" Nancy Halverson
"Your last lesson on God was one of the best yet. Even though its just common sense....the whole concept of God's place in the natural world seems a tad radical when its written down in black and white. You write with such a sense of balance though, and anyone with half a logical cell in their brain would have to bow to your reasoning. You take what modern man must know and feel in his soul, but is afraid (for what ever reason) to put into words...and you do just that. I wish your lessons and articles could reach a greater audience, more readers than just those looking into the Reform Mormon movement. Keep up the good work!" Nancy Halverson
Monday, May 23, 2005
AN ALL-POWERFUL BEING: DOES GOD DETERMINE WHAT IS RIGHT & WRONG?
This is the second in our current series of lessons exploring the Reform Mormon approach to morality and ethics. In this lesson we will compare the Mormon doctrine of Deity to the doctrine embraced by traditional monotheistic faiths and explore how these doctrines shape one’s approach to morality and ethics.
MORALITY BY COMMAND
Anciently codes of ethics and morals were enforced by command. Whether the command came from a tribal leader, from a king, from a god or through a priest, the impression made upon the minds of the people was the same: right and wrong were not up to debate, were not subject to discussion. A higher authority decided what was moral and immoral, and one had no right to do anything but obey. Understanding the principles behind the command was not important; only obedience.
As many Evangelicals and fundamentalists often say, “God gave us the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions.” LDS Mormons express the same sentiment somewhat differently when they teach, “Obedience is the first law of heaven.”
Traditionally when an individual has had trouble understanding or accepting a particular commandment, they have often been taught that they need to exercise faith in God or in the source from which the command was issued. In such circumstances, faith means a non-critical, non-thinking, non-judgmental acceptance of the commandment; in short, turning off one’s mind and merely doing as one is told. Thus many traditional religions praise the concept of “faith”--by which they mean accepting an idea without any evidence to support it. In the absence of any real understanding of the principle being advanced, faith--in and of itself--is presented as a virtue and a moral value.
“I WAS MERELY FOLLOWING ORDERS” IS NO EXCUSE FOF IMMORALITY
Such “faith” is nothing more than accepting an idea blindly; it is nothing more than admitting that one is acting in total ignorance. In fact, far from serving as a foundation for morality, this type of “faith” is actually an attempt to avoid personal moral responsibility. (To take personal responsibility for one’s morals, one would have to ask questions, challenge commandments when they are issued and harbor doubts.)
Those who committed war crimes during World War II later defended themselves by explaining that they were merely obeying the laws of the governments under which they lived; that they were “merely following orders,” and that it was the dictators who ruled them who were morally responsible for the atrocities committed.
Such a defense rang hollow then , and it still does today. We live in a world in which the concept of the individual is widely accepted. Most western societies are based on a rational understanding of human nature and individual responsibility.
Yet religions have traditionally envisioned a God who is divine by virtue of His absolute power. The Bible was the product of ancient peoples whose societies were ruled by kings and lords who exerted total control. It was only natural that these people envisioned God primarily in terms of power, control and kingly glory. Often these people attempted to exterminate the citizens of various cities or the worshippers of various gods because their God--who they worshipped as absolute ruler of heaven and earth--had commanded them to do so.
Through the Bible and other ancient scripture, modern men and women have inherited the ancient phrases that these people used in reference to God: “King of Kings,” “Lord of Lords,’ “Ruler of Heaven and Earth.” But modern men and women no longer reverence kings, lords and absolute rulers. In fact, those who rule with absolute power are viewed with suspicion; they are feared, if not hated.
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This saying is accepted by many as true. Yet a great number of these same people revere God as one who rules the cosmos with absolute power.
Questions:
If one believes that absolute power corrupts, how does one justify venerating a God on the basis of His supposed absolute power?
If those who blindly follow the commands of human dictators are held morally responsible as individuals for their actions, how should those who blindly follow the commandment of their God viewed?
“BUT GOD IS DIFFERENT FROM MAN,”
or
REJECTING THE NATURAL WORLD
Followers of traditional monotheism would most likely say that the above questions are groundless because God is different from man; His nature is completely unlike ours. In fact, many theologians would say that God has no nature as the concept is commonly understood.
The word “nature” applies to those things that are not created, that are not made, but simply exist or occur on their own. But traditional monotheism teaches that one all-powerful God created existence. In fact, it could be argued that monotheism completely rejects the concept of nature altogether. Because God created all things, He is the “First Cause”; nothing exists independently of Him; nothing evolves or “just happens” on its own. As the creator of all existence, God alone holds ultimate power; He alone has the right to determine what is moral or immoral. Humans, being but mere creatures whose existence is dependent on God’s will, have no right to question, doubt or disobey whatever commands issue from the mouth of God. When God speaks, the thinking has been done.
“AS MAN NOW IS, GOD ONCE WAS”
orACCEPTING THE SUPREMACY OF NATURE
In the 1840’s the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith began teaching a radically new concept of God that had traditional religionists denouncing him as a heretic, a blasphemer and even an atheist. Yet this new Mormon doctrine of deity laid the groundwork for a new approach to morality and ethics.
The Mormon doctrine of God has been summed up as follows:
“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”
Contrary to traditional monotheism, God and man are not two separate kinds of being: God was once human; humans may become Gods.
Mormonism teaches that nature (existence itself) was not created by God; nature simply exists on its own. Thus Mormonism accepts the basic premise behind rationalism and scientific thought. Concerning the nature of existence, Mormon scriptures declare: "The elements are eternal." (D&C 93:34)
The world as we know it was not created by God from nothing, but was organized by the Gods from naturally existing elements. In Mormon scripture‘s “creation story,” God says to His fellow Gods:
We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth... (Abraham 3:24)
Mormonism teaches that God is not omnipotent; it is nature alone (existence itself ) and the laws of nature that are omnipotent. In Mormon theology truth is defined as a knowledge of existence. In the 1840’s Mormon theologian Parley P. Pratt wrote:
"The laws of truth are omnipotent and unalterable--no power in heaven or earth can break them in the least degree."
Mormonism teaches that God became God by acquiring knowledge of the truth (a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be). Contrary to other religions, within Mormonism God does not decide what is true and false, but like other intelligent beings, He must act in harmony with the facts of existence; God's righteous and morality were acquired character traits.
Humans, too, if they are to progress, must also come to terms to with the facts of existence; they, too must acquired righteousness and morality as personal character traits.
“YOU MUST LEARN TO BE GODS YOURSELVES”
Or
YOU MUST LEARN MORALITY ON YOUR OWN
Joseph Smith taught, “You must learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done.”
Mormonism envisions God as moral, as righteous, and invites humans to partake of this same morality and righteousness. This is state of being is not something that can be given by God to us as a reward for having obeyed commandments or having followed some divinely predetermined program or pattern of behavior. A moral, godly character must be cultivated by the individual alone.
Joseph smith taught that the being we revernce as God was once a human who was born, lived and died on an earth similiar to our own. Thus learning to “become Gods” ourselves, means starting upon the same path that God once trod--embracing life on earth, living fully and in accordance with our nature, and learning in the process. The individual must think for him or herself, must make his or her own decisions, take action and bear the full responsibility for actions taken.
In short, morality is founded upon actively thinking for one’s self, not blindly obeying dictates and “commands from on high.” In moral issues what matters the most is not, “what saith the Lord God, but “what do you say?” and, even more importantly, what will you do. Just as war criminals can’t hide behind the skirts of dictators, so the individual can not hide behind the skirts of an all-powerful God. Each of us is, in fact, our own person.
And so when it comes to morality, one finds oneself where God began: an individual with Free Agency (free will) standing before the natural world and asking, “What do I think of all of this? What am I to make of it? What will I value, and how will my values effect the choices I will make and the things I will do?”
REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“You must learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done…” Joseph Smith
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
MORALITY BY COMMAND
Anciently codes of ethics and morals were enforced by command. Whether the command came from a tribal leader, from a king, from a god or through a priest, the impression made upon the minds of the people was the same: right and wrong were not up to debate, were not subject to discussion. A higher authority decided what was moral and immoral, and one had no right to do anything but obey. Understanding the principles behind the command was not important; only obedience.
As many Evangelicals and fundamentalists often say, “God gave us the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions.” LDS Mormons express the same sentiment somewhat differently when they teach, “Obedience is the first law of heaven.”
Traditionally when an individual has had trouble understanding or accepting a particular commandment, they have often been taught that they need to exercise faith in God or in the source from which the command was issued. In such circumstances, faith means a non-critical, non-thinking, non-judgmental acceptance of the commandment; in short, turning off one’s mind and merely doing as one is told. Thus many traditional religions praise the concept of “faith”--by which they mean accepting an idea without any evidence to support it. In the absence of any real understanding of the principle being advanced, faith--in and of itself--is presented as a virtue and a moral value.
“I WAS MERELY FOLLOWING ORDERS” IS NO EXCUSE FOF IMMORALITY
Such “faith” is nothing more than accepting an idea blindly; it is nothing more than admitting that one is acting in total ignorance. In fact, far from serving as a foundation for morality, this type of “faith” is actually an attempt to avoid personal moral responsibility. (To take personal responsibility for one’s morals, one would have to ask questions, challenge commandments when they are issued and harbor doubts.)
Those who committed war crimes during World War II later defended themselves by explaining that they were merely obeying the laws of the governments under which they lived; that they were “merely following orders,” and that it was the dictators who ruled them who were morally responsible for the atrocities committed.
Such a defense rang hollow then , and it still does today. We live in a world in which the concept of the individual is widely accepted. Most western societies are based on a rational understanding of human nature and individual responsibility.
Yet religions have traditionally envisioned a God who is divine by virtue of His absolute power. The Bible was the product of ancient peoples whose societies were ruled by kings and lords who exerted total control. It was only natural that these people envisioned God primarily in terms of power, control and kingly glory. Often these people attempted to exterminate the citizens of various cities or the worshippers of various gods because their God--who they worshipped as absolute ruler of heaven and earth--had commanded them to do so.
Through the Bible and other ancient scripture, modern men and women have inherited the ancient phrases that these people used in reference to God: “King of Kings,” “Lord of Lords,’ “Ruler of Heaven and Earth.” But modern men and women no longer reverence kings, lords and absolute rulers. In fact, those who rule with absolute power are viewed with suspicion; they are feared, if not hated.
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This saying is accepted by many as true. Yet a great number of these same people revere God as one who rules the cosmos with absolute power.
Questions:
If one believes that absolute power corrupts, how does one justify venerating a God on the basis of His supposed absolute power?
If those who blindly follow the commands of human dictators are held morally responsible as individuals for their actions, how should those who blindly follow the commandment of their God viewed?
“BUT GOD IS DIFFERENT FROM MAN,”
or
REJECTING THE NATURAL WORLD
Followers of traditional monotheism would most likely say that the above questions are groundless because God is different from man; His nature is completely unlike ours. In fact, many theologians would say that God has no nature as the concept is commonly understood.
The word “nature” applies to those things that are not created, that are not made, but simply exist or occur on their own. But traditional monotheism teaches that one all-powerful God created existence. In fact, it could be argued that monotheism completely rejects the concept of nature altogether. Because God created all things, He is the “First Cause”; nothing exists independently of Him; nothing evolves or “just happens” on its own. As the creator of all existence, God alone holds ultimate power; He alone has the right to determine what is moral or immoral. Humans, being but mere creatures whose existence is dependent on God’s will, have no right to question, doubt or disobey whatever commands issue from the mouth of God. When God speaks, the thinking has been done.
“AS MAN NOW IS, GOD ONCE WAS”
orACCEPTING THE SUPREMACY OF NATURE
In the 1840’s the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith began teaching a radically new concept of God that had traditional religionists denouncing him as a heretic, a blasphemer and even an atheist. Yet this new Mormon doctrine of deity laid the groundwork for a new approach to morality and ethics.
The Mormon doctrine of God has been summed up as follows:
“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”
Contrary to traditional monotheism, God and man are not two separate kinds of being: God was once human; humans may become Gods.
Mormonism teaches that nature (existence itself) was not created by God; nature simply exists on its own. Thus Mormonism accepts the basic premise behind rationalism and scientific thought. Concerning the nature of existence, Mormon scriptures declare: "The elements are eternal." (D&C 93:34)
The world as we know it was not created by God from nothing, but was organized by the Gods from naturally existing elements. In Mormon scripture‘s “creation story,” God says to His fellow Gods:
We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth... (Abraham 3:24)
Mormonism teaches that God is not omnipotent; it is nature alone (existence itself ) and the laws of nature that are omnipotent. In Mormon theology truth is defined as a knowledge of existence. In the 1840’s Mormon theologian Parley P. Pratt wrote:
"The laws of truth are omnipotent and unalterable--no power in heaven or earth can break them in the least degree."
Mormonism teaches that God became God by acquiring knowledge of the truth (a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be). Contrary to other religions, within Mormonism God does not decide what is true and false, but like other intelligent beings, He must act in harmony with the facts of existence; God's righteous and morality were acquired character traits.
Humans, too, if they are to progress, must also come to terms to with the facts of existence; they, too must acquired righteousness and morality as personal character traits.
“YOU MUST LEARN TO BE GODS YOURSELVES”
Or
YOU MUST LEARN MORALITY ON YOUR OWN
Joseph Smith taught, “You must learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done.”
Mormonism envisions God as moral, as righteous, and invites humans to partake of this same morality and righteousness. This is state of being is not something that can be given by God to us as a reward for having obeyed commandments or having followed some divinely predetermined program or pattern of behavior. A moral, godly character must be cultivated by the individual alone.
Joseph smith taught that the being we revernce as God was once a human who was born, lived and died on an earth similiar to our own. Thus learning to “become Gods” ourselves, means starting upon the same path that God once trod--embracing life on earth, living fully and in accordance with our nature, and learning in the process. The individual must think for him or herself, must make his or her own decisions, take action and bear the full responsibility for actions taken.
In short, morality is founded upon actively thinking for one’s self, not blindly obeying dictates and “commands from on high.” In moral issues what matters the most is not, “what saith the Lord God, but “what do you say?” and, even more importantly, what will you do. Just as war criminals can’t hide behind the skirts of dictators, so the individual can not hide behind the skirts of an all-powerful God. Each of us is, in fact, our own person.
And so when it comes to morality, one finds oneself where God began: an individual with Free Agency (free will) standing before the natural world and asking, “What do I think of all of this? What am I to make of it? What will I value, and how will my values effect the choices I will make and the things I will do?”
REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“You must learn to be Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done…” Joseph Smith
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Thursday, May 19, 2005
READERS' FORUM: Reform Mormonism, ethics & morality
In response to this week's lesson on the nature of ethics and morality, we've received the following email from Mick in Germany, who indentifies himself as a Reform Mormon without an LDS background:
"I fully agree with the article! To state that morality is clearly set forth in the Bible or any other held-to-be authority is as wrong as the opposite, - that ethics and morality are totally relative and up to one´s own taste. The latter statement is worse because it would undermine ethical reasoning altogether: If you claim all morality to be relative, you necessarily also embrace even the most authoritarian and intolerant moral codes as legitimate. To say that it is wrong to suppress women is then not any better than the opposite claim. To me that would imply an unbearable consequence!
I am inclined to put it that way: Ethical codes are useful guidelines that have to be adjusted according to the demands of the situation. But not to the demands of selfishness! Ethical reasoning and acting should always try to live up to the ethical principles of love, peace, truthfulness, empathy and justice.
Therefore, we should clearly distinguish between moral codes or rules (which are indeed relative), and ethical principles (the most important one´s are stated above) which are by no means relative but absolute; - yes, even sacred!"
"I fully agree with the article! To state that morality is clearly set forth in the Bible or any other held-to-be authority is as wrong as the opposite, - that ethics and morality are totally relative and up to one´s own taste. The latter statement is worse because it would undermine ethical reasoning altogether: If you claim all morality to be relative, you necessarily also embrace even the most authoritarian and intolerant moral codes as legitimate. To say that it is wrong to suppress women is then not any better than the opposite claim. To me that would imply an unbearable consequence!
I am inclined to put it that way: Ethical codes are useful guidelines that have to be adjusted according to the demands of the situation. But not to the demands of selfishness! Ethical reasoning and acting should always try to live up to the ethical principles of love, peace, truthfulness, empathy and justice.
Therefore, we should clearly distinguish between moral codes or rules (which are indeed relative), and ethical principles (the most important one´s are stated above) which are by no means relative but absolute; - yes, even sacred!"
Monday, May 16, 2005
RIGHT & WRONG: Reform Mormonism, ethics and morality
How does one determine what is right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical? What is the basis of morality? A new series of Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine lessons will explore these question.
WHAT’S RIGHT & WRONG: IT’S OBVIOUS…ISN’T IT?
When it comes to determining what is right and wrong, most people may, at first, think that the answers are pretty obvious. After all, since early childhood most of us have probably had rules regarding what is moral or immoral drilled into our heads.
For instance, when it comes to honesty, most of us have probably been taught the following ideas:
“It is wrong to tell a lie.”
“Always tell the truth.”
“Honesty is always the best policy.”
As a result, most of us probably consider it immoral and unethical to lie. Many people mistakenly think that one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not lie.” (No such commandment is found in the Bible, though there is a commandment against “bearing false witness” against others. But telling a lie can encompass much more than “bearing false witness” against others. In fact, many--if not most--lies that people tell have to do with themselves or things that they thought, said or did.)
It is generally believed that telling the truth is always ethical, and that telling a lie or being dishonest is always unethical.
But consider the following situation:
You live in Germany in 1942. Your are hiding Jewish neighbors in your home, fully aware that if government authorities find them, they will be sent to a concentration camp where they will suffer and probably be executed. Nazi authorities come knocking at your door, and ask if you are hiding Jews in your home.
Knowing that if you are honest, innocent human beings will suffer, is it moral or immoral to tell the truth? In this situation would it be moral or immoral to tell a lie?
Such situations took place during World War II, and those who lied to save the lives of innocent men, women and children are now regarded as heroes who did what was moral by lying to authorities.
How can this reality be reconciled with the idea that it is wrong to lie and right to be honest?
IT’S ALRIGHT WHEN A LIFE IS AT STAKE
Most would answer that the rule concerning the immorality of telling a lie can be broken when a human life is at stake. Indeed, when the issue is one of life and death, most people would tend to believe that any rules concerning morality--that any concepts of right and wrong--can be temporarily suspended.
And by resorting to this reasoning, yet another “rule” concerning right and wrong is laid out.
But is this “rule” sound?
For instance, most people believe it is wrong to steal from others. (This concept is found with among the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal.”)
What if one’s child or a loved one is starving to death? Obviously a human life is at stake. Is it still wrong to break into someone’s home and steal food or money with which to buy food? Would this suddenly be the “right” thing to do simply because one is saving an innocent person’s life?
What if one’s own life is at stake? What if you are the one starving? If to save your own life, you resort to theft, is it still wrong to steal?
IT’S ALRIGHT WHEN IT’S DONE FOR OTHERS:
“IT’S MORE BLESSED TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE.”
Many would reason that it may be alright to suspend the “rules” concerning right and wrong when it is done to save the life of another, but not to save one’s own life.
Thus, yet another “rule” concerning what is moral or immoral is laid out.
This rule hearkens back to the saying, “It is more blessed to give, than to receive.” This statement is embraced by most people are a moral truism. (Many people also mistakenly believe that this saying is found in the Bible. In fact, this idea is not found any where in the Bible.)
But is this idea true?
Consider that in order for you to do what is “more blessed” and good (that is, to give something to another), someone else is required to do something less blessed (that is, they are required to “receive” what you have given).
This concept--regarded almost universally are a moral truth--actually sets up something of a “Catch-22”/ “Damned if you; damned if you don’t” situation. In order for one person to do what is regarded as morally positive, someone else must first do what is regarded (under the same concept) what is regarded as morally negative.
ARE RULES & COMMANDMENTS
THE BASIS OF MORAILTY & ETHICS?
All of the above are examples of the questions one may ultimately face when one approaches the issue of morality from the point of view that what is right or wrong is determined by a set of commandments or rules that are applicable to all situations.
The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith taught: “What is wrong in one situation can be, and often is, right in another.”
Does this mean that morality is completely subjective; that, when it comes to issues of right and wrong, anything goes?
THE REFORM MORMON APPROACH TO MORALITY
In the coming lessons, we will explore these questions from the Reform Mormon perspective.
We will consider the Mormon concepts of God, the nature of reality, the individual and Free Agency (freewill); we will explore how these concepts contrast with those that have been traditionally accepted by a majority of the world’s religions, and how these concepts relate to issues of right and wrong.
Reform Mormons believe that “God is not someone who requires obedience.” This seems to fly in the face of the traditional concept of a God who establishes morality by laying down commandments which all are expected to obey.
Also, contrary to what one might conclude from the teachings of LDS Mormons, Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, morality--according to Reform Mormonism--is far more than a sexual code.
Reform Mormonism teaches that:
“There is a difference in our decision-making process between simple rule-following and the ongoing process of morality…morals and morality…are our entire basis for decision-making.”
Discussion Questions:
What is the basis of your decision-making?
How do you currently approach the issue of morality?
How do you determine what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, ethical and unethical?
REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
''I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man's life. As we live, we grow and our beliefs change. They must change. So I think we should live with this constant discovery. We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living. We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.'' - Martin Buber
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
WHAT’S RIGHT & WRONG: IT’S OBVIOUS…ISN’T IT?
When it comes to determining what is right and wrong, most people may, at first, think that the answers are pretty obvious. After all, since early childhood most of us have probably had rules regarding what is moral or immoral drilled into our heads.
For instance, when it comes to honesty, most of us have probably been taught the following ideas:
“It is wrong to tell a lie.”
“Always tell the truth.”
“Honesty is always the best policy.”
As a result, most of us probably consider it immoral and unethical to lie. Many people mistakenly think that one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not lie.” (No such commandment is found in the Bible, though there is a commandment against “bearing false witness” against others. But telling a lie can encompass much more than “bearing false witness” against others. In fact, many--if not most--lies that people tell have to do with themselves or things that they thought, said or did.)
It is generally believed that telling the truth is always ethical, and that telling a lie or being dishonest is always unethical.
But consider the following situation:
You live in Germany in 1942. Your are hiding Jewish neighbors in your home, fully aware that if government authorities find them, they will be sent to a concentration camp where they will suffer and probably be executed. Nazi authorities come knocking at your door, and ask if you are hiding Jews in your home.
Knowing that if you are honest, innocent human beings will suffer, is it moral or immoral to tell the truth? In this situation would it be moral or immoral to tell a lie?
Such situations took place during World War II, and those who lied to save the lives of innocent men, women and children are now regarded as heroes who did what was moral by lying to authorities.
How can this reality be reconciled with the idea that it is wrong to lie and right to be honest?
IT’S ALRIGHT WHEN A LIFE IS AT STAKE
Most would answer that the rule concerning the immorality of telling a lie can be broken when a human life is at stake. Indeed, when the issue is one of life and death, most people would tend to believe that any rules concerning morality--that any concepts of right and wrong--can be temporarily suspended.
And by resorting to this reasoning, yet another “rule” concerning right and wrong is laid out.
But is this “rule” sound?
For instance, most people believe it is wrong to steal from others. (This concept is found with among the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal.”)
What if one’s child or a loved one is starving to death? Obviously a human life is at stake. Is it still wrong to break into someone’s home and steal food or money with which to buy food? Would this suddenly be the “right” thing to do simply because one is saving an innocent person’s life?
What if one’s own life is at stake? What if you are the one starving? If to save your own life, you resort to theft, is it still wrong to steal?
IT’S ALRIGHT WHEN IT’S DONE FOR OTHERS:
“IT’S MORE BLESSED TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE.”
Many would reason that it may be alright to suspend the “rules” concerning right and wrong when it is done to save the life of another, but not to save one’s own life.
Thus, yet another “rule” concerning what is moral or immoral is laid out.
This rule hearkens back to the saying, “It is more blessed to give, than to receive.” This statement is embraced by most people are a moral truism. (Many people also mistakenly believe that this saying is found in the Bible. In fact, this idea is not found any where in the Bible.)
But is this idea true?
Consider that in order for you to do what is “more blessed” and good (that is, to give something to another), someone else is required to do something less blessed (that is, they are required to “receive” what you have given).
This concept--regarded almost universally are a moral truth--actually sets up something of a “Catch-22”/ “Damned if you; damned if you don’t” situation. In order for one person to do what is regarded as morally positive, someone else must first do what is regarded (under the same concept) what is regarded as morally negative.
ARE RULES & COMMANDMENTS
THE BASIS OF MORAILTY & ETHICS?
All of the above are examples of the questions one may ultimately face when one approaches the issue of morality from the point of view that what is right or wrong is determined by a set of commandments or rules that are applicable to all situations.
The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith taught: “What is wrong in one situation can be, and often is, right in another.”
Does this mean that morality is completely subjective; that, when it comes to issues of right and wrong, anything goes?
THE REFORM MORMON APPROACH TO MORALITY
In the coming lessons, we will explore these questions from the Reform Mormon perspective.
We will consider the Mormon concepts of God, the nature of reality, the individual and Free Agency (freewill); we will explore how these concepts contrast with those that have been traditionally accepted by a majority of the world’s religions, and how these concepts relate to issues of right and wrong.
Reform Mormons believe that “God is not someone who requires obedience.” This seems to fly in the face of the traditional concept of a God who establishes morality by laying down commandments which all are expected to obey.
Also, contrary to what one might conclude from the teachings of LDS Mormons, Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, morality--according to Reform Mormonism--is far more than a sexual code.
Reform Mormonism teaches that:
“There is a difference in our decision-making process between simple rule-following and the ongoing process of morality…morals and morality…are our entire basis for decision-making.”
Discussion Questions:
What is the basis of your decision-making?
How do you currently approach the issue of morality?
How do you determine what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, ethical and unethical?
REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
''I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man's life. As we live, we grow and our beliefs change. They must change. So I think we should live with this constant discovery. We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living. We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.'' - Martin Buber
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Please jump right in and join out Gospel Doctrine Discussion. Send your comments and opinions to: reformmormons@aol.com. ALL opinions are welcomed, and may be posted as part of this blog.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Saturday, March 26, 2005
LIFE IS ETERNAL: THE RESURRECTION & THE MESSAGE OF EASTER
26 March 2005
“For I know that my redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms shall destroy this body, yet in my flesh I shall see God.”
(Job 19: 25-26)
“He will swallow up death in victory, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces...” (Isaiah 25:8)
“Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”
(Isaiah 26: 19)
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” ( I Corinthians 15:22)
“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (I Corinthians 15:26)
In the Mormon graveyard at the place once called “Winter’s Quarters” is a memorial plaque that echoes the message of Easter.
On what was once a frozen, barren prairie situated on the boarder of Nebraska and Iowa, nearly fifteen thousand Mormons, expelled from Illinois, struggled to survive the brutal winter of 1847. The make-shift settlement that these pioneers quickly threw up became a death camp, with thousands falling ill and hundreds dying.
And yet today in this place where there once was so much suffering and death, there is a monument to the pioneers belief in the message of Easter.
A plaque in the graveyard lists the names of those who died and are buried there, and yet the plaque is not adorned with a Christian cross--a symbol of Christ’s death. Instead, in the center of the plaque is beautiful human figure--standing straight and upright, arms extended out as if embracing the earth. The figure is muscular, weighty, and yet seems to be rising from the earth. Above the figure, stretching across the entire width of the plaque are these simple words: LIFE IS ETERNAL
It has been observed by some recent Mormon scholars and writers that belief in the Resurrection of the Dead is the one doctrine from which spring nearly all other doctrines unique to Mormonism. Consider the following:
The Mormon tradition of embracing education and learning stems from the doctrine that whatever knowledge one gains in this life will rise with one in the resurrection. (See Doctrine & Covenants 130:18)
The dietary restrictions observed by some denominations of Mormons harkens back to the belief that the physical body itself is holy and will, at the Resurrection, be revived and made eternal.
Most importantly, for the majority of the world’s Mormons belief in the Resurrection is the foundation for the conviction that marriage and family relationships can be eternal. Temple marriage ceremonies end with the blessings associated with the Resurrection being pronounced upon the couple being wed.
Even the tradition, common among many Mormons, of not using the cross as a religious symbol, is based on the conviction that Christ’s resurrection--not his agonizing death on the cross--should be the proper focus of one’s faith and hope.
When in his funeral sermon for King Follett, Joseph Smith laid out a startling new theology regarding the nature of eternity, God and humans, he reasoned from Biblical texts dealing with the death and resurrection of Christ.
Christ’s teachings on the Resurrection were not original or unique to him. During his ministry, the doctrine was hotly debated by Jewish thinkers and religious leaders. Those who embraced the doctrine believed that at some future point in history, the physical bodies of all those who had ever lived would be restored to life; that physical death itself would be conquered and that human life on earth would be made eternal . Many believed that the expected Messiah would bring to pass this resurrection.
For the first century followers of Christ, his resurrection--and the hope of an eventual universal resurrection--were the foundations of their faith. The Apostle Paul went so far as to write that “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain.” (See I Corinthians 15:17)
As Reform Mormons partake of the sacrament this Easter, we might ask ourselves just how the concept of the Resurrection effects the way we view the world; how it effects our values, our ethics and our actions. Do we view our life here on earth as something merely temporal, or do we see it as connected to eternity? In examining our lives and our present situation, whatever it may be, are we able to discern that which is eternal? Is the value of our pursuits (be they the pursuit of knowledge, the development of our gifts and talents, the forming of familial and romantic relationships, the forging of friendships) merely transitory, or is it--by virtue of the Resurrection--potentially eternal?
For in the end, the hope of the Resurrection is the hope that human life on earth has eternal value and meaning; that in some way our human nature has more in common with God’s eternal nature than may be apparent as we struggle through the “opposition in all things” that often clouds our vision day to day.
Whether one’s life ends in agony upon a cross--scorned and ridiculed by the world; in exile on a frozen Nebraska prairie, or ebbing slowly away in a hospital room--the hope of the Resurrection is that death, by whatever means it comes, has but a temporary hold upon us, and that human loves, passions, values and accomplishments are, in fact, eternal.
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain…” (Revelation 21:4)
“For I know that my redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms shall destroy this body, yet in my flesh I shall see God.”
(Job 19: 25-26)
“He will swallow up death in victory, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces...” (Isaiah 25:8)
“Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”
(Isaiah 26: 19)
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” ( I Corinthians 15:22)
“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (I Corinthians 15:26)
In the Mormon graveyard at the place once called “Winter’s Quarters” is a memorial plaque that echoes the message of Easter.
On what was once a frozen, barren prairie situated on the boarder of Nebraska and Iowa, nearly fifteen thousand Mormons, expelled from Illinois, struggled to survive the brutal winter of 1847. The make-shift settlement that these pioneers quickly threw up became a death camp, with thousands falling ill and hundreds dying.
And yet today in this place where there once was so much suffering and death, there is a monument to the pioneers belief in the message of Easter.
A plaque in the graveyard lists the names of those who died and are buried there, and yet the plaque is not adorned with a Christian cross--a symbol of Christ’s death. Instead, in the center of the plaque is beautiful human figure--standing straight and upright, arms extended out as if embracing the earth. The figure is muscular, weighty, and yet seems to be rising from the earth. Above the figure, stretching across the entire width of the plaque are these simple words: LIFE IS ETERNAL
It has been observed by some recent Mormon scholars and writers that belief in the Resurrection of the Dead is the one doctrine from which spring nearly all other doctrines unique to Mormonism. Consider the following:
The Mormon tradition of embracing education and learning stems from the doctrine that whatever knowledge one gains in this life will rise with one in the resurrection. (See Doctrine & Covenants 130:18)
The dietary restrictions observed by some denominations of Mormons harkens back to the belief that the physical body itself is holy and will, at the Resurrection, be revived and made eternal.
Most importantly, for the majority of the world’s Mormons belief in the Resurrection is the foundation for the conviction that marriage and family relationships can be eternal. Temple marriage ceremonies end with the blessings associated with the Resurrection being pronounced upon the couple being wed.
Even the tradition, common among many Mormons, of not using the cross as a religious symbol, is based on the conviction that Christ’s resurrection--not his agonizing death on the cross--should be the proper focus of one’s faith and hope.
When in his funeral sermon for King Follett, Joseph Smith laid out a startling new theology regarding the nature of eternity, God and humans, he reasoned from Biblical texts dealing with the death and resurrection of Christ.
Christ’s teachings on the Resurrection were not original or unique to him. During his ministry, the doctrine was hotly debated by Jewish thinkers and religious leaders. Those who embraced the doctrine believed that at some future point in history, the physical bodies of all those who had ever lived would be restored to life; that physical death itself would be conquered and that human life on earth would be made eternal . Many believed that the expected Messiah would bring to pass this resurrection.
For the first century followers of Christ, his resurrection--and the hope of an eventual universal resurrection--were the foundations of their faith. The Apostle Paul went so far as to write that “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain.” (See I Corinthians 15:17)
As Reform Mormons partake of the sacrament this Easter, we might ask ourselves just how the concept of the Resurrection effects the way we view the world; how it effects our values, our ethics and our actions. Do we view our life here on earth as something merely temporal, or do we see it as connected to eternity? In examining our lives and our present situation, whatever it may be, are we able to discern that which is eternal? Is the value of our pursuits (be they the pursuit of knowledge, the development of our gifts and talents, the forming of familial and romantic relationships, the forging of friendships) merely transitory, or is it--by virtue of the Resurrection--potentially eternal?
For in the end, the hope of the Resurrection is the hope that human life on earth has eternal value and meaning; that in some way our human nature has more in common with God’s eternal nature than may be apparent as we struggle through the “opposition in all things” that often clouds our vision day to day.
Whether one’s life ends in agony upon a cross--scorned and ridiculed by the world; in exile on a frozen Nebraska prairie, or ebbing slowly away in a hospital room--the hope of the Resurrection is that death, by whatever means it comes, has but a temporary hold upon us, and that human loves, passions, values and accomplishments are, in fact, eternal.
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain…” (Revelation 21:4)
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
FEBRUARY 16th: THE DAY OF ETERNAL PROGRESSION
“Do Mormons believe that only Mormons will go to heaven?”
It only stands to reason that this would be one of the first questions asked by someone seeking to learn more about Mormonism. After all, the idea of “being saved” from Hell and eternal damnation and “going to heaven” when one dies is the basis of what most people in the West believe about an afterlife. Religion is usually presented as a means of “getting into heaven,” and more than a few religious people believe that others will not get into heaven unless they accept their religion--which can mean everything from “having a personal relationship with Jesus,” to obeying the dictates of a particular book of scripture, a particular person or an institution.
Because of all of this, it’s perfectly understandable that most people would assume that Mormons believe that only Mormons will “get into heaven.”
In the first years of the Mormon movement, it’s pretty safe to say that most Mormons--coming from a traditional Christian background--probably did believe this. After all, “The Book of Mormon” itself contained many passages on Hell, damnation and salvation.
And so it not only surprised many Mormons, but also troubled some, when on February 16, 1832 Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and his councilor, Sidney Rigdon had a vision of eternity that was not only at odds with “the Grand Scheme of Things” as traditionally envisioned, but also hinted that human nature itself was quite different than what was commonly believed.
Even Mormon leader Brigham Young admitted, "My traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was so directly contrary and opposed to my former education, I said, wait a little; I did not reject it, but I could not understand it" (Deseret News, Extra, September 14, 1852, p. 24).
“THE VISION”
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had been studying the Bible when they came across the Apostle Paul’s writings on the Resurrection of the Dead. Paul’s reference to there being “bodies Celestial and bodies Terrestrial” piqued their curiosity, and they decided to study further and pray over the matter.
Joseph Smith wrote:
"From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one."
After studying further in the Gospelof John, Joseph and Sidney decided to pray for further understanding and knowledge. As a result of their prayers, they envisioned what might now be called “The Mormon Grand Scheme of Things,” and set it down in writing. At first known simply as “The Vision,” it was widely circulated among Mormons and eventually was canonized as Section 76 of “The Doctrine & Covenants.”
From its birth, Mormonism had been viewed by most people as unorthodox. After all, it rejected the Bible as the sole source of authority, regarding “The Book of Mormon” and other writings by Joseph Smith as divinely inspired scripture. “The Vision” signaled what would eventually become a complete break not only from traditional Christianity, but also from monotheism itself. For those who accepted the scheme of things as laid out in “The Vision,” the question, “Who will get into heaven and who will go to hell?” became obsolete.
Of "The Vision," Mormon pioneer leader Wilford Woodruff said it was "a revelation which gives more light, more truth, and more principle than any revelation contained in any other book we ever read." Twentieth century LDS leader Elder Melvin J. Ballard called it "the greatest revelation the Lord, Jesus Christ, has ever given to man, so far as record is made."
PROGRESSION INSTEAD OF SALVATION
The case could be made that in 1832 the majority of Christians believed that only Christians would inherit “The Kingdom of God.” Many believed that the majority of mankind would be damned. Thus it was believed that one’s eternal happiness would depend on whether one had accepted the right religion.
But according to “The Vision” recorded on February 16, 1832, one’s religious affiliation, as well as the doctrines that one accepted, had little if anything to do with this. What matter was one’s character, one’s personal virtue and righteous. That virtue would be manifested in one’s actions--in one’s works. It is by one’s works--not by one’s faith and beliefs --that one would be judged.
No one is either all good or all bad. Each human being is a mixture of light and dark. All have free will (Free Agency) and can chose their actions. People have minds that are capable of learning and acting upon new truth. In short, each of us can grow and progress.
Each of us is on an eternal journey not to a particular destination such as traditionally envisioned with Heaven and Hell, but journey towards becoming a particular type of person. We are each progressing, evolving; and since we are each a free agent, we each control the pace and extent of our progress and evolution. Being born in the image of God, each of us--by our very nature--can progress and become like God.
In “The Vision” the Glory of God--that is, God’s virtue, knowledge and power--was likened to the brilliant light of the sun. Those who become like God will inherit this glory: the Glory of the Sun, or Celestial Glory. “The Vision” went so far as to declare that those who inherited this Celestial Glory would., in fact, become Gods.
Because of their choices and works, some will not progress as far. Using the symbolism of light, “The Vision” says that some will inherit a glory that could be compared to the light of the Moon (Telestial Glory). Still others will progress and inherit a glory that could be compared to the Light of the Stars (Terrestrial Glory).
These various degrees of glory are not given to people by God or anyone else. One’s degree of glory is the direct result of the type of person that one has become--the knowledge gained, the virtue cultivated. Because of this, all people will have some degree of happiness in eternity.
A LIGHT BRUSTING FORTH
Joseph Smith likened “The Vision” of February 16, 1832 to a “light which burst upon the world,“ the truths of which were “so much beyond the narrow-mindedness of men, that every man is constrained to exclaim: "It came from God"' (“The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 11).
A REFORM MORMON HOLIDAY
Because of the new understanding of humanity’s nature and divine potential laid forth in “The Vision,“ Reform Mormons revere February 16th as a holiday. In some Reform Mormon homes, the Sacrament will be taken as part of the day’s main meal. In some of their homes, Reform Mormons will light three candles--symbolizing the Celestial, Telestial and Terrestrial Glories. Still others may read “The Vision,” published as Section 76 in “The Doctrine & Covenants,” and mediate upon it. What unites all will be the feeling of celebration and thankfulness for a vision of eternity in which all human beings will inherit a degree of glory and happiness; a vision in which the labels of “saved” and “damned” have no place; a vision that truly embraces all mankind.
ETERNAL PROGRESSION:
THE OBJECTIVE OF REFORM MORMONISM
THE OBJECTIVE OF REFORM MORMONISM
Eternal Progression is central to Reform Mormonism. Whereas others might ask, “What must I do to be saved?,” Reform Mormons ask, “How can I become more like God? How can I progress? What more can I learn? How can I further develop my talents? I can I reach my full potential? How can I fulfill the measure of my creation?” In contemplating the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory, these questions can take on deeper meaning and help serve as a compass for living.
THE REFORM MORMON ORDINANCE OF THE SACRAMENT
At the most basic level, Reform Mormonism is an approach to living for individuals who wish to progress, to realize their full potential and to have joy not only in eternity, but now in this life.
Reform Mormon rituals, ordinances and holidays have the most potential for deep meaning when they are observed in the home--either alone or in the company of family and friends.
The Sacrament (traditonally called Holy Communion or The Lord’s Supper ) is an ordinance to be observed in the home. Neither priest, rabbi or clergy is needed; Reform Mormons believe that each person can approach God as a Priest or Priestess for him or herself. The notion of “the Priesthood of All Believers” is an accepted truth for Reform Mormons.
The Sacrament--the blessing and partaking of bread and wine--usually takes place at one’s own dinner table, as part of one’s main meal on the Sabbath or on holidays.
If, as part of celebrating February 16th (The Day of Eternal Progression), you would like to administer the Sacrament, the Reform Mormon Sacramental prayers are printed below.
Once the food has been prepared and all members of the family are seated at the table, the person administering the Sacrament, waits for quiet, takes bread, and breaks it. After pausing for a moment of quiet meditation, the following is spoken:
(Addresses God,) we ask thee to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of thee, and of the covenant to emulate thy creation. Amen.
The bread is passed among all at the table, and all partake. The person administering then pours wine into a glass, pauses, and speaks:
(Addresses God,) we ask thee to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may drink in remembrance of thee, and always have thy spirit to be with them. Amen.
Once all have partaken of the wine, the Sacrament is ended; the meal progresses.
Reform Mormons have a variety of ways to address God in prayers and ordinances. The particular method chosen is at the discretion of the Officiator. Three of the most common are:
"O God, the Eternal Father,""O God, the Eternal Mother,""O God, our Eternal Parents"
To read more on Reform Mormonism, visit www.reformmormonism.org
How did you observe the Day of Eternal Progression?
Share you thoughts and experiences with our readers,
by emailing us at: reformmormons@aol.com
Sunday, February 13, 2005
THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE: Exploring the story of Adam & Eve
(In this lesson we continue our exploration of the Mormon interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. You’re encouraged to look at the accounts of the story found in Genesis and in the Book of Moses in “The Pearl of Great Price,” as well as the commentary found in II Nephi, chapter 2 in “The Book of Mormon.” An abridged version of the story--edited from these sources as well as from the dramatized portion of the LDS Mormon Endowment Ceremony--can be found in our last lesson )
HUMANITY’S LEGACY OF FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE
Throughout most of recorded history there has been a tradition of Forbidden Knowledge--the idea that there were things which humanity should not know. The message of most religions has been that while it was the will of God (or the Gods) that humans be rational creatures, it is human curiosity and the desire for knowledge that is responsible for all misery; that if humans would remain humble and obedient to Deity, never venturing beyond Divinely appointed limits of what it was proper for them to know, all would be well.
Anciently there was the myth of Pandora, whose curiosity led her to disobey the command of the Gods that she not open a certain box. By opening the box, Pandora released all the evils, miseries and woes that have plagued the earth.
There is also the myth of Prometheus who tried to capture the Divine Fire of the Gods, bringing wisdom, light and knowledge to mankind. For this sin, the Gods chained him to a mountain top where he would be eternally tormented by birds of prey.
The Bible also has one such myth, found in the eleventh chapter of Genesis. Humans decide to “make a name” for themselves by building a tower, the top of which will reach to the heavens. When the Lord sees this, he says to the others in his heavenly court:
“Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Genesis 11:6)
The only way that the Lord is able to put a stop to human ingenuity is to confuse their language so that the towers builders are unable to understand one another.
Notice that in each of these myths, the humans are able to do exactly what they set out to do: Pandora opens the box, Prometheus brings light to the world and the Tower of Babel is built. In all of these stories the borders dividing humans from Gods are being breeched. The Gods, in order to maintain their distance from humans (who They see as inferior beings), either have to punish humanity or undermine their natural abilities.
In the end it is humanity’s rational nature, their curiosity and--perhaps most importantly--their imagination (their ability to create), that threatens the Gods, who are depicted as jealous to preserve their sovereignty.
In short, religions have tended to preach variations on a single them: ignorance is not only bliss, it is blessed--the foundation of morality; know your place and don’t venture past it; turn off your mind, believe and obey; don’t trust your own understanding of things.
A quick glance at history shows that it has been traditional religion and its priests that have consistently protested nearly every important advancement in human knowledge--all in the name of God.
No where is this more clearly evident than in the debate between some fundamentalists and scientists over the theory of Evolution. A farmer in rural Georgia may protest that the public schools are teaching his children certain theories and biological facts as Evolution--which he sees as a denial of God’s sovereignty. Yet armed with most of these same theories and biological facts, this same farmer will work to breed a prize-winning hog--a better hog than would be born if nature ran its course without human intervention.
Currently there are debates on the morality of such things as nuclear energy, cloning and stem cell research. “We must not play God,” many say.
But what if “playing God” is exactly what God expects of His children? What if “playing God”--far from being a sin--is actually the basis of morality? What if there simply is no such thing as forbidden knowledge?
Orthodox Christianity has taken the notion of forbidden knowledge and imposed it on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Christianity has taught that it was pride, ambition and the sinful desire to become like God, that prompted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Because they did this, they sinned and fell from God’s grace. Their quest for knowledge corrupted human nature itself--so that everyone born since is worthy of nothing other than eternal damnation.
Original sin is the concept of inherited guilt; of guilt, not for what one does, but for what one is.
Most modern Christians reject such evils as racism and anti-Semitism; after all, one can’t help the race or ethnic group one into which one is born; they realize that racism is wrong because it is based on the concept of inherited guilt--a guilt based not on actions committed but on identity itself. Yet these same Christians accept this notion on a much broader scale. In fact, it is the basis of their world view. It is mankind’s inherited guilt--human identity itself--from which, Christians believe, Christ must save us.
And the root of this inherited guilt--this Original Sin? The human quest for knowledge and understanding.
Often when people discuss the story of Adam and Eve, they use certain words and phrases: the Forbidden Fruit, Original Sin, the Fall, pride, arrogance, sin, the devil, lies, Satan, Lucifer. But if one looks at the story in Genesis, one will see that not a single one of these words or phrases appear any where in the text itself.
It is often taught that the serpent lied to Adam and Eve when he told them that if they ate the fruit they “would be as gods, knowing good ands evil.” (Genesis 3:5)
But according to God Himself, the serpent told the truth. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, God declares:
“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” (Doctrine & Covenants 131:6)
Lest anyone suppose that this knowledge and intelligence only relates to “religious” or “spiritual” matters, Mormon scriptures admonish us to “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:118)
HUMANITY’S LEGACY OF FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE
Throughout most of recorded history there has been a tradition of Forbidden Knowledge--the idea that there were things which humanity should not know. The message of most religions has been that while it was the will of God (or the Gods) that humans be rational creatures, it is human curiosity and the desire for knowledge that is responsible for all misery; that if humans would remain humble and obedient to Deity, never venturing beyond Divinely appointed limits of what it was proper for them to know, all would be well.
Anciently there was the myth of Pandora, whose curiosity led her to disobey the command of the Gods that she not open a certain box. By opening the box, Pandora released all the evils, miseries and woes that have plagued the earth.
There is also the myth of Prometheus who tried to capture the Divine Fire of the Gods, bringing wisdom, light and knowledge to mankind. For this sin, the Gods chained him to a mountain top where he would be eternally tormented by birds of prey.
The Bible also has one such myth, found in the eleventh chapter of Genesis. Humans decide to “make a name” for themselves by building a tower, the top of which will reach to the heavens. When the Lord sees this, he says to the others in his heavenly court:
“Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Genesis 11:6)
The only way that the Lord is able to put a stop to human ingenuity is to confuse their language so that the towers builders are unable to understand one another.
Notice that in each of these myths, the humans are able to do exactly what they set out to do: Pandora opens the box, Prometheus brings light to the world and the Tower of Babel is built. In all of these stories the borders dividing humans from Gods are being breeched. The Gods, in order to maintain their distance from humans (who They see as inferior beings), either have to punish humanity or undermine their natural abilities.
In the end it is humanity’s rational nature, their curiosity and--perhaps most importantly--their imagination (their ability to create), that threatens the Gods, who are depicted as jealous to preserve their sovereignty.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS…AND BLESSED, TOO
In short, religions have tended to preach variations on a single them: ignorance is not only bliss, it is blessed--the foundation of morality; know your place and don’t venture past it; turn off your mind, believe and obey; don’t trust your own understanding of things.
A quick glance at history shows that it has been traditional religion and its priests that have consistently protested nearly every important advancement in human knowledge--all in the name of God.
No where is this more clearly evident than in the debate between some fundamentalists and scientists over the theory of Evolution. A farmer in rural Georgia may protest that the public schools are teaching his children certain theories and biological facts as Evolution--which he sees as a denial of God’s sovereignty. Yet armed with most of these same theories and biological facts, this same farmer will work to breed a prize-winning hog--a better hog than would be born if nature ran its course without human intervention.
Currently there are debates on the morality of such things as nuclear energy, cloning and stem cell research. “We must not play God,” many say.
But what if “playing God” is exactly what God expects of His children? What if “playing God”--far from being a sin--is actually the basis of morality? What if there simply is no such thing as forbidden knowledge?
CRIMINALIZING ADAM & EVE
Orthodox Christianity has taken the notion of forbidden knowledge and imposed it on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Christianity has taught that it was pride, ambition and the sinful desire to become like God, that prompted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Because they did this, they sinned and fell from God’s grace. Their quest for knowledge corrupted human nature itself--so that everyone born since is worthy of nothing other than eternal damnation.
Original sin is the concept of inherited guilt; of guilt, not for what one does, but for what one is.
Most modern Christians reject such evils as racism and anti-Semitism; after all, one can’t help the race or ethnic group one into which one is born; they realize that racism is wrong because it is based on the concept of inherited guilt--a guilt based not on actions committed but on identity itself. Yet these same Christians accept this notion on a much broader scale. In fact, it is the basis of their world view. It is mankind’s inherited guilt--human identity itself--from which, Christians believe, Christ must save us.
And the root of this inherited guilt--this Original Sin? The human quest for knowledge and understanding.
SPLITING THE ADAM: READING THINGS INTO THE BIBLE
Often when people discuss the story of Adam and Eve, they use certain words and phrases: the Forbidden Fruit, Original Sin, the Fall, pride, arrogance, sin, the devil, lies, Satan, Lucifer. But if one looks at the story in Genesis, one will see that not a single one of these words or phrases appear any where in the text itself.
It is often taught that the serpent lied to Adam and Eve when he told them that if they ate the fruit they “would be as gods, knowing good ands evil.” (Genesis 3:5)
But according to God Himself, the serpent told the truth. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, God declares:
“Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil.” (Genesis 3:22)
ADAM & EVE: OUR HEROIC FIRST PARENTS
“The Book of Mormon” broke with 1800 years of Christian tradition by presenting an opposing (indeed, a completely contradictory) interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.
The so-called Fall was a good thing. Adam and Eve had to eat from the Tree of Knowledge in order that humans might exist and fulfill the object of their creation, which was to have joy.
Early Mormon leaders such a Brigham Young took great pride in the fact that Mormon theology did not view Adam and Eve as the world’s first sinners--as those responsible for all sin, misery and woe--but as the world’s first heroes who bravely ate from the Tree of Knowledge and left the Garden of Eden so that they and their descendents might progress.
Early Mormon leaders such a Brigham Young took great pride in the fact that Mormon theology did not view Adam and Eve as the world’s first sinners--as those responsible for all sin, misery and woe--but as the world’s first heroes who bravely ate from the Tree of Knowledge and left the Garden of Eden so that they and their descendents might progress.
“KNOWLEDGE IS WHAT SAVES A MAN”
Joseph Smith taught “Knowledge is what saves a man.”
Mormon scriptures declare:
“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” (Doctrine & Covenants 131:6)
“The Glory of God is intelligence.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:36)
Lest anyone suppose that this knowledge and intelligence only relates to “religious” or “spiritual” matters, Mormon scriptures admonish us to “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:118)
When defining “Truth,” other religious traditions often lean toward mystical and vague definitions. In contrast, consider the Mormon definition:
“Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less that this is the spirit of the wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:24)
What is the result of acquiring knowledge?
“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. 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.” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:18-19)
KNOWLEDGE:
THE SECOND PRINCIPLE OF REFORM MORMONISM
THE SECOND PRINCIPLE OF REFORM MORMONISM
Brigham Young taught that all truth is part of Mormonism--whether it be found in religion, science, philosophy. There is no contradiction between one “type of truth” and another. Indeed, the Masonic Compass (which is incorporated into Reform Mormonism’s logo) within Mormon tradition symbolizes that “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.”
Accepting these principles and building upon them Reform Mormonism embraces knowledge as the second of its four foundational principles--Faith, Knowledge, Revelation and Restoration.
Within Reform Mormonism, there is no such thing as forbidden knowledge. There is no conflict between religion and science, or religion and art. All fields of human endeavor may yield aspects of the truth; therefore, all are to be explored. There is no such thing as blind faith, as mindless obedience. Indeed, being a child of God with a mind capable of unlimited growth, it is up to each and every individual to think for him or herself.
Within Reform Mormonism, there is no such thing as forbidden knowledge. There is no conflict between religion and science, or religion and art. All fields of human endeavor may yield aspects of the truth; therefore, all are to be explored. There is no such thing as blind faith, as mindless obedience. Indeed, being a child of God with a mind capable of unlimited growth, it is up to each and every individual to think for him or herself.
In the end there is no area of knowledge so scared that it is off-limits to humankind; for Mormon scripture proclaims:
“…the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God..” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:49)
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!
DON'T FORGET TO MARK YOUR CALENDARS
February 16th is a Mormon Holiday
On February 16, 1832 Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon recorded the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory--found in "The Doctrine & Covenants," Section 76. This Vision serves as the foundation for the Mormon belief in Universal Exalation--the belief that all people who have ever lived, regardless of their religion, will inherit some degree of glory and eternal happiness. This Vision is also important because it is the first place in Mormon scripture where the human potential for Godhood is mentioned. (D&C 76:58)
Because of the great importance of this Vision to Mormonism, REFORM MORMONS honor February 16th as a religious holiday--a day on which to mediate upon the principles laid out in this Vision, and to celebrate God's universal love and justice--as well as humanity's Divine potential.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
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.
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.
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.”
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)
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
