tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55436823775070813162024-03-13T21:39:32.481-07:00The Anti-AntiThe Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the TruthParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-56522613645245816982014-12-20T23:43:00.005-08:002021-09-03T14:56:08.076-07:00Footnotes on Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Polyandry, and Sexuality<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">The Mormon church recently released a groundbreaking <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng">essay</a> on
Joseph Smith's polygamous practice during the 1830s and 1840s. I say
groundbreaking in the context of its having been authored and posted to the
official LDS website. Frankly, I'm pleased the church has chosen to be more
transparent about its founder's eccentric marital practice. The brethren are
now willing to admit Joseph Smith had between 30-40 wives, some of which were
married to other living men, some of which were younger than 16 years old, and
that many of these marriages had a sexual dimension. Of course, faithful
historians have conceded this information and more for several for decades now,
some of them even facing excommunication for their unequivocal transparency.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">But like a few of their other recent
essays, the church has broad-brushed most of the details in an effort to
obscure any “context” that might be faith destroying. For instance, it's not
true that we know nothing of how Emma felt about Joseph's infidelity and it's
not true that there are no accounts of how Joseph implemented the practice. It
seems the men in charge are more concerned with preserving loyalty and
admiration for the prophetic mantle than in giving their membership full
disclosure on the man who founded their religion. But anyone who has studied
the life of Joseph Smith knows that by his own admission, he was a fallible
mortal. A spiritual charismatic to be sure, yet he was human. He made mistakes
and he manipulated people. Viewing Joseph Smith from a historical-critical
perspective is the only way we can reconstruct him as a whole person rather
than a caricature. Doing so requires that we account for not only his
theological integrity but also for the character of his words and actions from
every perspective.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">First of all, let’s concede that on the
subject of polygamy, Joseph’s public testimony is almost entirely unreliable.
Except to a few of his closest associates, he vehemently denied practicing
polygamy until the day he died. When allegations arose, he actively smeared the
reputations of those who exposed his participation and used church discipline
to silence whistleblowers. That’s just the fact of the public record. Joseph
denied ever sanctioning it, and were he present today he would likely
excommunicate Monson and the twelve for endorsing the polygamy article in
official church channels.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">But facts are facts and the church has evidently reached a point where it can’t afford to deny these things any
longer. Certainly progress is progress and they deserve a plaudit for as much. Nevertheless,
it is disappointing that they can’t be bothered to give any of the known
details about how Joseph propositioned these women and the deception he used to
conceal it. The article doesn’t mention the kind of language in which the
prophet couched his propositions. It talks about him promising heaven, but it
doesn’t mention his promise of damnation to those who would not comply. It
doesn’t offer any examples of the surviving evidence we have for sexuality with
the younger women or in the polyandrous marriages. It doesn’t mention Joseph
adopting young twins and marrying them – more than once. Actually, one is hard
pressed to name a maid or female foster child in the Smith household who
doesn’t eventually end up on this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives">list</a>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">The church article doesn’t discuss
Joseph using what he called “harsh measures” to discipline his wife, Emma, when
she would not be contented with silence on the subject. The article fails to
mention Joseph’s suspicions that Emma was poisoning him for his involvement in
polygamy. It fails to mention that Joseph offered her a second husband as
compromise. It doesn’t mention Joseph marrying older widows and using them to
convince younger women to accept his proposals. It doesn’t mention letters he
wrote asking close disciples to bring their daughters to his private room while
cautioning them against Emma's discovery of the errand. It doesn’t discuss how
he sent associates on missions then approached their wives in their absence.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Fortunately, a few of Joseph’s “burn
upon reading” letters have survived, and his cohorts weren’t alwasy as opaque
about Nauvoo polygamy. These accounts serve to show that there is more to the
story than Joseph being threatened by a sword-wielding angel if he resisted
God's command, as the prophet intimates he was. The church has cited that story
to suggest Smith was reticent rather than enthused to practice polygamy. Here
are a few examples that demonstrate this was simply not the case. Consider
Mormon historian Richard Van Wagoner’s account of Joseph and Sidney Rigdon’s
fallout in Nauvoo:</span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">"Smith was at odds with his long-time friend and counselor
Sidney Rigdon over a reputed polygamous proposal on 9 April 1842 to Rigdon's
unmarried daughter Nancy. George W. Robinson, a prominent Nauvoo citizen
married to another of Rigdon's daughters, wrote to James A. Bennett, a New York
friend to the church, on 22 July that 'Smith sent for Miss Rigdon to come to
the house of Mrs. [Orson] Hyde, who lived in the under-rooms of the printing-
office.’ According to Robinson, Nancy 'inquired of the messenger . . . what was
wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see her.' Robinson
claimed that Smith took her into a room, 'locked the door, and then stated to
her that he had had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she
should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this matter, for he had got
a revelation on the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob,
etc., etc., and that there was no sin in it whatever.' Robinson reported that
Nancy 'repulsed him and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock
the door and let her out.'</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">"Nancy's brother, John, recounting the incident years later
in an affidavit, remembered that 'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got
married she would marry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and
went home, leaving Joseph.' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her
family until a day or two later, when a letter from Smith was delivered by
Smith's personal secretary, Willard Richards. 'Happiness is the object and
design of our existence,' the letter began. 'That which is wrong under one
circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.' The letter went on to
teach that 'whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we
may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. . . . Our
Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and
blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive.'</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">"Nancy showed Smith's letter to her father and told him of
the incident at the Hyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith.
George W. Robinson reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged
father asked for an explanation. Smith 'attempted to deny it at first,'
Robinson said, 'and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so
much earnestness, and the fact of a letter being present, which he had caused
to be written to her, on the same subject, the day after the attempt made on
her virtue,' that ultimately 'he could not withstand the testimony; he then and
there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true.’ Much
later, John Rigdon elaborated that 'Nancy was one of those excitable women and
she went into the room and said, “Joseph Smith, you are telling that which is
not true You did make such a proposition to me and you know it [crossed out in
the original: 'The woman who was there said to Nancy Are you not afraid to call
the Lord's anointed a cursed liar No she replied I am not for he does lie and
he knows it’”]’</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">"Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident,
claimed he had propositioned Nancy because he 'wished to ascertain whether she
was virtuous or not, and took that course to learn the
facts!'" (Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 31-33)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">In the same letter to Nancy, Joseph
observed, “If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added.
So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every
desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all
who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were
right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation. A parent may whip
a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had
asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it
with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of
the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">By his own account Joseph didn’t steal
these women, he felt entitled to them because they were given to him by God. In
this way did he persuade faithful women to consent to “things which might
[otherwise] be considered abominable.” Thereby he believed the pleasure was
preserved without an infraction against eternal law. But was pleasure really an
operative aspect of Joseph's motivations? One late recollection from William
Law, a counselor in the First Presidency at the time, observed that to his
confidants, "Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me
one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more <u2:p>pleasure
than any girl he had ever enjoyed" (Interview with William Law, Salt Lake
Tribune, July 31, 1887).</u2:p></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">His libido is more directly attested by
Eliza R. Snow who was asked by Heber C. Kimball whether she remained a virgin
after her plural marriage to Joseph, to which she replied, “I thought you knew
Joseph Smith better than that” (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural
Wives of Joseph Smith, p 12, 13). Once the practice became public in the Salt
Lake Valley, several of his documented wives testified of having “carnal
intercourse” with him and being his wives “in very deed.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">There are many problems with arguing
that Joseph's focus was more the spiritual, sealing aspect of Joseph’s
marriages. It certainly existed. Joseph forged a loyal inner hierarchy by
marrying the daughters and sisters of his closest disciples in exchange for
their assured salvation, and often the privilege to take plural wives themselves.
But does this feudal sealing strategy sufficiently account for the odd details
surrounding some of Joseph’s wives? The prophet's romantic relationship with
Fanny Alger began sometime in 1833, at least three years prior to any claim of
restored sealing power. One of Joseph’s first wives was actually a non-member
at the time. He secretly married Louisa Beaman on 5 April 1841, but she was not
baptized until 11 May 1843 (Ibid., p 59; Joseph Smith, History of the Church,
vol. 5, p 385). Joseph Noble, a friendly source, conducted the ceremony and
testified to their having slept in the same bed from time to time. Why did God
command him to marry these women contra what was later claimed to be the Lord’s
standard? Was Joseph simply using his ecclesiastical position to his advantage
as a roaming suitor?</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Recall Joseph’s mode of persuasion when
he requested fourteen year old Helen Mar Kimball’s hand in plural marriage
(from her memoir): “[Joseph] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will
ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s
household & all your kindred.’ This promise was so great that I willingly
gave myself for such a reward” (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural
Wives of Joseph Smith, p 499). Not only will she, in a single stroke of action,
seal her eternal salvation on her own head, but also on all of her relatives
and friends, too. Apparently, Joseph developed a new hierarchical soteriology
to justify his actions in Nauvoo. Salvation depends upon obedience to whatever
commandment is issued from the Lord’s Anointed, and in this case, also upon
one’s attachment to him in the eternities. Because to Joseph his exaltation was
already assured, anyone he willed could be sealed to him and partake of his
celestial glory. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><br />
In studying the Nauvoo period specifically, it becomes clear that Joseph has
long since internalized the persona of deity and takes license with biblical
notions to craft his own gospel message with special allowances for his
disciples:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><br />
"I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the adversary in
accusing the brethren, and said "if you do not accuse each other God will
not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will
follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will
take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not
accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over
yours – for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin
is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it
down." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:445)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">A fine example of Joseph's messianic
conflation of his own desires with those of the Almighty as it relates to
polygamy is found in his letter to seventeen year old Sarah Ann Whitney and her
parents:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">“Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.-</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">“I take this oppertunity to communicate, some of my feelings,
privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own
bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately
between us, that the time of my absence from you seems so long, and dreary,
that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would
come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of
mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me
succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I
am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyram's farm, it is only one
mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come
and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a
head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next
to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be
attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you
should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not attal now is the time
or never, but I have no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the
goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is
made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma
comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most
perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I
know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the
more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on
paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your
breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is to git the
fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for
my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your
good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I
think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night. I
subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"> “Joseph Smith” (Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph
Smith, p. 539-540)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Joseph hid his marital liaisons from
Emma in direct conflict with the stated program in D&C 132. Whether due to
narcissism or megalomania, Smith confused his own desires with those of the
Almighty – “I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now” –
and he used his position as prophet to exert religious pressure on young girls
and their families. Again, lest anyone suppose that Joseph was marrying
these women without requiring physical intimacy, consider the unpublished
revelation to Sarah’s father a month prior:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">“Verily thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel]. K. Whitney,
the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your Family
[his plural marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney] and which you have agreed upon is
right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and
immortality and eternal life to all your house both old & young because of
the lineage of my Preast Hood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your
children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the Holy promise
which I now make unto you saith the Lord. These are the words which you shall
pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your Daughter S[arah]. A[nn]. Whitney they
shall take each other by the hand and you shall say you both mutually agree
calling them by name to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall
live preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also
throughout all eternity reserving only those rights which have been given to my
servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal Authority in times
passed. If you both agree to covenant and do this then I give you S[arah].
A[nn]. Whitney my Daughter to Joseph Smith to be his wife to observe all the
rights between you both that belong to that condition.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">(Revelation to Newell K. Whitney, 27 July 1842, from copy in
archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, Utah)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">The fact is Joseph did engage in sexual
union with many of his wives; there is much corroboratory evidence attesting the
behavior. Parents or guardians were sometimes aware of conjugal visits as in the
case of the Whitney’s above. After being sealed to Almera Johnson, Smith stayed
with her in her brother's home "as man and wife." Her brother
Benjamin Johnson later said Joseph "occupied the same room and bed with my
sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late
Bishop Partridge as his wife" (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George
F. Gibbs).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">If we take a moment to consider the line
of thinking that suggests polygamy's primary purpose was to raise up
"righteous seed," we are then left to wrestle with why there were so
few children resulting from these marriages (none are verifiable). We know
Joseph was potent because of his first marriage; Emma conceived nearly a dozen
times with him. And it is obvious Joseph was concerned about concealing
potential pregnancies because the majority of his earliest marriages were to
married women. Case in point: months after his own polygamous union to her,
Joseph arranged for young Sarah Ann Whitney to marry Joseph C. Kingsbury in
what he called a "pretended marriage" to avoid suspicion. If the
prophet’s apparent lack of children by these women is telling, keep in mind
that Smith’s sometime associate, John C. Bennett, practiced as a medical doctor
while in Nauvoo. Among other things, Bennett was accused of secretly conducting
abortions and “embryo infanticide” by Joseph's brother before Hyrum ever knew
of the prophet's participation in polygamy (Andrew F. Smith, The Saintly
Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett, p 113). Perhaps there
is a connection?</span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Certainly Joseph’s connection to
Bennett, while brief, speaks volumes about how the prophet practiced polygamy.
Many choose to dismiss Bennett’s testimony a priori given that Joseph later
smeared him as a traitor and a liar. But it should be remembered, however, that
as mayor of Nauvoo, Assistant President of the Church, and Counselor in the
First Presidency, Bennett was closer to Joseph during this courtship period
than any other man. Bennett introduced Smith to the several ranks of Masonic ritual
that quickly found their way into the Lord's own revealed liturgy. Before
fleeing Nauvoo, we know he courted women on the coattails of Joseph's
"spiritual wifery" doctrine, often citing Smith's endorsement of
their relationship (and using similar proposal methods). Once
excommunicated, Bennett published an exposé correctly naming seven of Joseph’s
plural wives and many eye witness details of the ceremonies that are now confirmed
in other friendly journals.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">My final submission for consideration is
a summary of Joseph’s courting of Sarah Pratt, wife of stalwart apostle Orson
Pratt, during 1841-1842:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">While Orson Pratt was serving a mission
in Europe, Joseph told his confidant, the aforementioned Bennett, that he had
fostered an affection toward Sarah Pratt for some time. Accordingly, he called
on her, made a proposition in the typical manner, and was deftly rejected.
After another attempt, she threatened disclosure to Orson upon his return.
Joseph reportedly said, “Sister Pratt. I hope you will not expose me; if I am
to suffer, all suffer, so do not expose me... If you should tell, I will ruin
your reputation; remember that.” Orson returned from his mission and Sarah kept
silent until the following year.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Bennett indicates that Joseph
subsequently kissed her privately, at which point she reported the behavior to
her husband. The apostle Orson was enraged to learn the allegations and engaged
Joseph in long conversation. Joseph denied the claims of Sarah, instead
accusing his wife of committing adultery with Bennett. Orson initially did not
oppose the prophet publically, and refused to testify against Bennett in his
excommunication trial, saying, “he knew nothing against the man.” This changed,
however, when Smith renewed his attack on Pratt’s wife, calling her a “bitch
from her mother’s breast” at the pulpit.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">By all accounts, Orson was in a very
dark place. From his perspective Smith supposedly wanted Sarah for himself, and
Bennett had supposedly slept with her – both men explicitly denying the
accusation. Orson’s mind was so depressed he left a note and wandered five
miles out of town miserably. Joseph mandated a citywide search, concerned that
he would kill himself. When they found him and tried to reconcile his mind,
they couldn’t relieve his grief. Orson then sided with his wife, who was
opposed to Joseph’s account of things. Joseph encouraged a divorce and warned
the apostle “if he did believe his wife and follow her suggestions he would go
to hell.” The Pratts’ resisted and were both excommunicated. Eventually Joseph
won Orson over, however, and the apostle later began practicing polygamy out
West. Sarah in turn divorced her husband because of his “obsession with
marrying younger women.” (summary based largely on Van Wagoner, Mormon
Polygamy, pp 29-31).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">I could go on. Should these details
about Joseph Smith’s private behavior change our conception of him as a
prophet? Do these details matter? However we esteem his other revelations,
shouldn't this last one be scrutinized just as closely? I think its fair to say
his actions in Nauvoo caused a great deal of destruction in people’s lives and
broke the hearts of his first wife and many followers. Instead of salvation,
this "new and everlasting" commandment nearly brought Mormonism to
its ruin within fifty years time! </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
<u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p>In
my opinion, the missing context in the church article is further evidence that
the brethren do not prioritize truth and honesty above commitment to their own
program. The certainty of prophetic fallibility is not a notion they wish to
emphasize in an organization already struggling to maintain its solidarity and
loyalty to the faithful narrative. I think it's a missed opportunity to discuss
ethics in religion and its leadership. Like King David to the Jews, we can
study Joseph's life and actions to better understand our own humanity and the
inevitable humanity of our spiritual guides, despite their best ambitions.
Together, we could witness the truth; that "we have learned by sad
experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as
they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise
unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121:39). Thus they rob their membership of
an all-important lesson – that the truth is strengthened only when
every man is permitted to think and reason and account for himself the meaning
of these and all things.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment-->
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
<!--EndFragment--></span>
<!--EndFragment-->ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-52070111390892273462014-02-05T15:07:00.000-08:002016-07-11T23:49:46.887-07:00DNA: The Evidence of Things Not Seen<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The LDS church recently posted their newest in a series of
official apologetic articles dealing with thorny issues
that threaten basic Mormon truth claims. You can read "<a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies">Book of Mormon
and DNA Studies</a>" on the church's website. Since the recent advent of
genetic population science, critics have argued that DNA evidence
disproves the Book of Mormon as an historical record. In the article, the
church presses instead for a "<i>No Contest</i>" resolution in
the face of these claims. Interesting.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I guess you could say this essay means
something to me personally. As that Mormon kid in your elementary class who
couldn't contain himself when mention was made of Beringian migration, I
just had to raise my hand and set the teacher straight on <i>true </i>Native
American origins. Yes, I was that child. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Like many believers, I took the
testimonies of prophets and apostles seriously when they guaranteed
the veracity of the Book of Mormon without reservation. It is because I took
their words at face value that the church's prevaricating response is such
an embarrassment to me. I didn't realize as I shouted from the
(schoolyard) rooftops that within a few short decades my church leaders
would retreat to a philosophy of plausible deniability on things that
were always portrayed as historical truth.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">This seems to be a running theme in these
apologetic essays. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now to be honest, I know virtually
nothing about DNA science. But I am becoming familiar with the works of an
Australian plant geneticist with whom I share my faith heritage.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton">Simon Southerton</a> formerly
served as Bishop in the Mormon church <i>down under. </i>His story is
all too familiar for people who've left Mormonism or have been otherwise
expelled for voicing dissent. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">He became distressed when
discoveries made in the course of his career radically differed from
things he, as a Mormon, believed about Native Americans. Pressed by his
intimacy with the subject matter, he began to express confusion and doubt over
the issue, which he openly sought to resolve. When he refused to sit
silently, he was snubbed and set aside by his superiors. He did
some further research and published his findings in a book. He was
excommunicated as a result.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Southerton has a horse in the race then,
but I still think his blog response to the church DNA article, "<a href="http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-president-newsroom.html">Tentative
Faith meets Uncompromising Facts</a>," points out some glaring misrepresentations
on the part of the church. I recommend you read it. Frankly, nothing
earth-shattering is presented there. I've come to learn he simply affirms the widespread consensus
of the world's top geneticists - namely that Native
Americans are demonstrably of East Asian genealogy rather than Hebrew. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">In fact, his expert perspective fits right
in with the consensus of literally every other scientific discipline touching
on ancient American peoples to this date.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Coe">Michael Coe</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and other serious Mesoamerican
anthropologists who are familiar with the Nephite account have long
understood it to be a <a href="http://mormonstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Dialogue_V08N02_42-1.pdf">non-historical
work</a>. Coe says, "The bare facts of the matter are that nothing,
absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any<span class="apple-converted-space"> <st1:place w:st="on"></st1:place></span>New
World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate
observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical
document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere."<o:p></o:p></span><u1:p></u1:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Whereas the church initially sought to
leverage archaeology, sociology, and linguistics to establish evidence of Book of Mormon history in ancient<span class="apple-converted-space"> <st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region></span>America,
they have been frustrated time and time again by the results. For<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Roberts">B.H. Roberts</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and others who have tried to harmonize
the Book of Mormon with scientific knowledge, the evidence never
seemed to match what the book claims for itself. And for many of these intellectuals, what often starts as a
legitimate truth-seeking quest is conquered by loyalty to tradition. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the wake of these failures, the church
has worked hard to obscure the negative evidence from its membership.
They've encouraged believers to ignore the physical data, much in the way they
are now encouraging believers to dismiss the DNA evidence they know to be
accurate. The church's article is a testament to that fact, but I want to
further demonstrate it. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What is really astonishing here is
watching the same scenario play out with genetic science as happened with
anthropology. The church literally conducted their own genetic surveys to
gather data supporting Jewish ancestry for Native Americans. Do you suppose
they ever published their results? They did not.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Southerton recounts the history in his
book,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/losing-a-lost-tribe-native-americans-dna-and-the-mormon-church/">Losing
a Lost Tribe</a>. In many ways modeled after the international<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project">Human Genome Project</a>,
BYU initiated their own "impressive global molecular genealogy
project aimed at welding traditional family histories with cutting-edge DNA
technology” (Southerton, p. 180). It was eventually backed by Ira Fulton
and James Sorenson in March 2000, major players in the LDS investment community.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Many on their research team hoped to prove
the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon narrative by gathering DNA evidence and
thereby refuting tentative results from secular, non-LDS studies. By 2003,
more than 40,000 individuals had donated blood to the project and it was poised
to make incredible strides towards accomplishing its goals and then some.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"<i>Inexplicably</i>," BYU
suddenly dropped the project and all ties to the church were severed in the
same year. In 2004, their project was relocated to the <a href="http://www.smgf.org/">Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation</a> in
SLC and it has since continued bringing to fruition their vision of locating
the ancestral homelands of people by examining their blood’s genetic
information. Apparently it has been very successful; it is still touted as the
world’s foremost archive of human DNA.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Why the trepidation at involvement, the
sudden retraction on the part of BYU and the church? I do not take it as
coincidence that this is the exact period when scientific surveys garnered from
the grandiose HGP began gaining media attention. The genetic evidence
concretely refuted the Book of Mormon’s claim that the ancestors of Native
Americans are chiefly Semitic by descent. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Further, ultimate <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261520/DNA-study-by-Sorenson-links-most-Native-Americans.html?pg=all">conclusions</a> by
Sorenson and his orphaned team admit that today's surviving Native
Americans descend from six genetic sources arriving in the<span class="apple-converted-space"> <st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region></span>Americas about
20,000 years ago. Suffice it to say the time period in question is long
before the Book of Mormon migrations purportedly took place.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In fact, one of the project’s original
contributors was BYU professor Scott Woodward whose primary vested interest was
proving the Book of Mormon’s genealogy true through these means. As with
Thomas Ferguson and Howard Hunter in their <a href="http://66.147.244.190/~dialogu5/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V23N01_57.pdf">church-backed
archaeological pursuits</a>, Woodward did not experience the desired
results. Fortunately, the SMGF and Woodward (as co-author) went on to publish
their<a href="http://www.smgf.org/press_release.jspx?pr=32http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982208016187"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> </span></span>findings</a> without church backing. They
affirmed that the results of the secular scientists were sound.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Despite initial enthusiasm from BYU’s<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.smgf.org/press_release.jspx?pr=32http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982208016187">board
of trustees</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(read: apostles) for their global genetic project, it was quietly
dismissed when their own research independently confirmed what geneticists and
anthropologists had been singing all along - that Native Americans are
almost strictly of Asian descent and arrived from Siberia some
15,000-20,000 years ago. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Actually, the church's DNA
article makes more sense in this light. In the face of such mounting
opposition, the church can neither confirm nor deny anything besides the
spiritual truth of the text itself. It is damage control. The article boils down to an open
display of tactical double-speak that slithers in, over, and around the
issues science is raising for Mormon truth claims. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The truth is, there has been a growing
stockpile of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon">evidence</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>against the Book of Mormon's historicity for more
than a century. Physical evidence for the Book of Mormon has all but vanished
under the scope of scientific scrutiny. This contrary data
has accumulated from a variety of scientific disciplines, now
including genetics, to show that the Book of Mormon's historical claims
are dubious, fraudulent. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I probably would've kept my opinions to
myself in social studies class had I known how quickly the brethren would be
changing their tune on these fundamental Mormon truth claims. But this is what
a brief study of history can afford you. Like any other human culture in
history, one can observe that Mormonism changes with the seasons and will
continue to adapt where necessary.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I think the brethren will continue to
testify of the same old farce in the closed circuit that is Mormon culture, but
they must now address a new audience. They must address that portion of
the membership who refuse to close their eyes, bow their heads, and simply say,
"yes." It is a growing subset of their membership and they can no longer ignore widespread secular education.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Essentially everything that framed my
understanding of Book of Mormon history and prophecy growing up in the LDS
church is now being dodged, disavowed, or otherwise denied by official church
response to controversial scientific findings. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Is the Book of Mormon a historical work? <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Does it make any verifiable claims about
this continent or its ancient inhabitants? <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Who are the Lamanites? Are they of Hebrew
descent?<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Can their modern descendants be
identified so that the Book of Mormon's promises can be fulfilled in
them?<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The church's answers to these questions
are different now than they were when I was a member. They are non-answers.
Don't read the church DNA article expecting a response to any of the above
questions. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The only thing the church seems sure about
here is that DNA evidence, while a useful aid for genealogical research, really
can't tell us anything about the Book of Mormon peoples. Nor can any other
scientific study of ancient Americans - no matter the quantity of data, no
matter how substantial the results!<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">This amounts to crucifying Galileo afresh,
I believe. The earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, and so
forth. Instead, irrational faith will have to suffice as the evidence of things
not seen.<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">My question is this. When did the leading
occupation of the Lord's Watchtower shift from prophecy and seership to
politics and legal practice? It's almost apocalyptic in its ironic fulfillment
of prophecy, isn't it? Then again, perhaps there never was a shift at all. <u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Maybe that's what it is to be a prophet.
To predict vaguely enough that there is fulfillment regardless of what actually
transpires! To assume the credit when things works out, but distance yourself
should the prophecy fail! Some call this charlatanism. Whatever we call
it, this much seems sure: if you look to the<span class="apple-converted-space"> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on"></st1:placetype></st1:place></span>Church <st1:placename w:st="on">Office</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Building</st1:placetype> for
answers, you'll find little besides pandering platitudes and half-hearted
concessions.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-80034413705634132062012-12-26T13:33:00.001-08:002015-01-05T11:46:49.252-08:00Consider The Wandering Ones<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">As a fairly vocal dissenter of Mormon orthodoxy, I am often
troubled by just how skewed some of my friends’ and acquaintances’ perceptions
are with regard to my motivations. If you’ve chosen to leave the faith, why
can’t you just leave it alone? To a point, this is a fair question. If I’ve
determined Mormonism doesn’t line up with my beliefs, why not press forward and
focus on new endeavors? Why do people like me, a relative few of Mormonism’s
defectors, sometimes become consumed with analyzing their religious heritage?
Why do we feel the need to vocalize our position, thus becoming a disruptive
influence amongst believing friends and family? Is it merely persecution
evidencing the bitter discontentment of my sins? It is perceived by some that
instead of moving onward and upward, apostates are grasping at straws to fill
the aching chasm left in their lives by abandoning the restored gospel.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Growing up in the church, I experienced the same mild rhetorical
antagonism as most in the states. I saw people picket LDS conference events and
disseminate aggressively antagonistic tracts. There is a great deal of
confusion about these people in LDS culture. I myself participated in the
expression of disdainful sentiments towards these heretics who for whatever
illegitimate reason, couldn’t pass muster in the church and are thence promptly
taken in by Satan as he marshals his troops to fight God’s work. In the
polemical Mormon worldview, people are not fully agents in and of themselves,
they are also principles to be manipulated by powers unseen, and ultimately
subjected to a grand polarizing paradigm. Such was the framework suggested by
Mormonism’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr. Daniel Tyler, an early convert
baptized in 1833, recalled of the early church’s struggle with apostate
influences in the aftermath of the Kirtland fallout:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“Soon after the Prophet’s arrival in Commerce [Nauvoo] from
Missouri prison, Brother Isaac Behunin and myself made him a visit at his
residence. His persecutions were the topic of conversation. He repeated many
false, inconsistent and contradictory statements made by apostates, frightened
members of the Church and outsiders. He also told how most of the officials who
would fain have taken his life, when he was arrested, turned in his favor on
forming his acquaintance. He laid the burden of the blame on false brethren. …<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated,
Brother Behunin remarked: ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as
those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never
been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything
about it.’<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t
know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you
joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached,
good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There
were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church
you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and
you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to
serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his
dictation and be his servant.’” (“<span style="background: white;">Recollections
of the Prophet Joseph Smith,”</span> <i>Juvenile Instructor,</i> <span style="background: white;">Aug. 15, 1892, pp. 491,492)</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This paradigm strikes me as a very simplistic one. On the one
hand, it is a powerful framework in which to view oneself. The dividing lines
between good and evil, right and wrong, black and white are very distinct. Both
allies and enemies are easily discerned, although they may be caricatures of
their real-world counterparts. But it does tend to offer a clear-cut sense of
purpose and validation to whatever meaning one chooses to read into life.
Unfortunately, this perspective also seems to guarantee all manner of
misrepresentation and misunderstanding toward the opposition. It is a
propagandistic position.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">If one is not wary, a Mormon’s potent sense of purpose can
immunize them from constructive self-criticism and strip them of the very
compassion they pretend to practice. Don’t get me wrong, latter-day saints are
typically very compassionate people, both to their faithful membership and to
members of other faiths. But they struggle with the in-between. Once again, the
black and white gospel rhetoric creates a polarity that doesn’t really provide
space for the dissociated and the disaffiliates. Most Mormons struggle with how
to categorize this sometimes vocal minority; persons like myself who love
certain aspects of the gospel but choose to make their feelings and concerns
known. Thus, these “apostates” are regularly routed into the opposing camp
regardless of their honest intentions. Many do not understand that by thus
marginalizing thoughtful, struggling members because of honest skepticism, they
are creating artificial apostates. These are then typically characterized as
faithless, immoral, or otherwise irregular disciples, unfit for the kingdom.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I have exerted my own small efforts to enable the mutual
understanding of both parties. But much of my exertions feel wasted when we
seldom come to a mutual understanding. I suppose we see the world so
differently, we cannot help but speak past each other in many instances. How
can we bridge this chasm? Because much of the misunderstanding seems rooted in
confusion at the motives of heretics, I hope what follows will provide some
mutual understanding for my faithful friends. To adopt the spirit of the
season, I will suggest an empathetic reading of the almost universally
understood allegory of Santa Claus. Consider for a moment what it feels like
for someone to lose their faith.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Most of us have been on the receiving end of this one, so it
should be easy to relate to. Every winter, parents tell their children a
wonderfully magical tale about a portly, bearded man who spends the year
crafting toys for believers. In a single night in December, we are told, he
graciously delivers presents and toys and candy to all the good boys and girls
throughout the world. Parents take their children to sit on the lap of an actor
at the mall, have their kids write letters to him, and set out milk, cookies,
and a carrot the night before. Many parents go to great lengths to sustain the
illusion, staying up all night wrapping presents in his name. When the children
wake to find presents stacked knee high, each fulfilling their every hope and
desire, they are bedazzled! Witnessing for themselves the many gifts, the
carrot and cookies eaten, they can't help but believe. In the eyes of these
innocent children there is something magical in everything about it! They have
every confirmation they need.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It comes as no surprise to note that children often become a
little more obedient and a little more submissive come the holidays. The smart
parents will leverage the occasion to teach love and compassion and selfless
giving to their little ones. Nevertheless, it is often difficult for children
to anticipate anything other than what they will receive from Santa on
Christmas. But eventually there comes a time when they're a little older, a
little more mature, and a lot more rational thinking. They've experienced more
of the laws that govern our world. Perhaps they start discussing the logic of
Santa Claus being able to visit every home in a night with their friends,
perhaps they find a few gifts with Santa's name on them hidden in Mom's closet,
or maybe they begin to comprehend the sheer multitudes of children living in
third-world countries who have no concept of Christmas or presents or anything
of the sort.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The shattering of that illusion can be devastating to them. Some
children will feel hurt for being lied to, others will kick themselves for not
examining the evidence more closely, and many more will rush to inform the
ignorance of faithful friends. Most of them experience a loss of some sort. The
magic of Christmas day seems to vanish, even if they can learn to enjoy the
spirit of giving in its stead. Now to begin drawing parallels with a Mormon
faith crisis, extend this childhood experience with the Santa Claus fable from
a single, superficial holiday tradition once a year to every day of a person's
life. Suppose we continue to elaborate on the Christmas fiction so that there
is no aspect of life that belief does not affect. It informs everything you see
and do in the world, even defining your very identity and purpose. Extend the
fable’s duration well into adulthood. Imagine that the parental figures
continue to employ elaborate, illusory evidences and emphatically
faith-promoting discourse to sustain the credibility of the myth. Imagine that
you yourself want it to be true so badly that you yourself begin to contribute
to the Christmas culture, and you perpetuate it to your children. And then
imagine one day you see through it all. You realize how ridiculous it would be
if an obese man really could fit through your chimney and fill your life with
awesome goodness.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">As an adult believer in this sort of thing, the structural
collapse would be crushing, even world-shattering in many respects. Can you
imagine reaching middle age and still believing Santa is real? To discover you
have been treated as a child for far too long? Consider the intense personal
trauma this sort of paradigm collapse would create for even the most
strong-minded individuals. Do the parents necessarily deserve the blame? Of course
much responsibility does fall on them. Perhaps most “parents” in this scenario
are believers themselves, only perpetuating their holiday faith heritage to a
new generation with the best of intentions. Their ardent argumentation for the
truthfulness of this mythology is certainly validation for their own beliefs,
as well as for their children. And even those parents who do not truly believe
are contented to perpetuate the myth, believing in arrogance that it is still
the best method to encourage obedience and teach proper moral lessons to their
subjects. Do these parents profit from the obedience of their children?
Definitely. If children become committed dependents, as they typically do
during the holiday season, is there nothing parents could not require of mature
adults who are likewise convicted of “the truth” all year round? Afterall,
parents could hang onerous consequences over the heads of their children so
long as they submit to the belief.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Such are the realizations of many who lose their faith. So much
the more with Mormonism, too. Can you imagine the disgust, the revulsion these
grown adults might feel at learning they were living, breathing, walking
manifestations of the lies they were taught in their youth? How furious would
they be to realize they were defrauded, no matter how earnest the intentions of
their mentors? How embarrassing! Multiply a child's devastation at learning the
truth behind Christmas a thousand times, and you begin to understand the pain
of leaving Mormonism, from the heretic's point of view. Such is the initial
bitterness of our plight. I think if the faithful can muster any empathy for
the heartbroken child who discovers the reality behind Christmas, they can
begin to sympathize with the broken hearts of many who leave Mormonism.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">So what happens to these wandering children? It seems to me that
things mostly get better after the initial disappointments. Some will rush off
and immediately fill the vacancy with other, similar mythologies. It may be
religion or politics or secularism. But others will face the facts unabashedly.
We discover new freedoms and learn empowerment from this newfound agency. But
we are also forced to own up to the crushing reality of impending death, of
having to realize our own purpose in life, etc. All of these pleasures and
pains offer a true "coming of age" experience in my opinion – one I
do not believe is possible within the confines of Mormonism or any
institutional religion. So while the stories of Santa Claus were a beautiful ecstasy
to us as children, we must not curse the children who begin to see past it.
These begin to discover morality within themselves, independent of any
supernatural machinations. You see, these are headed for adulthood as they
pursue maturity. They abandon cognitive dissonance and become more fully
self-integrated. These begin to realize that they can no longer depend on a
mythical man to deliver presents to friends, family, and children.
They themselves will learn to give, and thus become the fabled Santa
Claus. No longer are these children, constantly submitting to some unseen,
pretended higher authority. They grow up and discover that authority within
themselves. They become true agents, fit to act and not be acted upon.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">For this reason, I believe it is good to speak up and encourage
honest dealings when it comes to Mormonism’s faith claims. Those who are ready
for the dialogue will be bettered by it. But those who are not ready should be
cautious. Do not mistake the adult discussions taking place on controversial subjects
within Mormonism as bitterness caused by mystical forces or some other
justification within your own paradigm. Consider for a moment that the world is
bigger than how you view it. Many of my “fallen” peers invested their whole
souls in Mormonism before discovering the disconcerting reality. Should any of
us be surprised that they want to speak frankly with their friends and family
as a result? To be clear, I suggest this Santa Claus allegory not to belittle
believers, but to help them understand the feelings of those who have left the
fold.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment-->ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-89566874729385412402012-12-02T17:54:00.001-08:002015-01-05T14:01:34.781-08:00D&C 5: An Alteration Altercation<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
When the LDS Doctrine & Covenants was first published in 1835, some noticed
that several of Joseph Smith's revelations had been significantly altered from
their earlier manuscript counterparts. What follows is an exacting comparison
between the manuscript and published versions of one of Joseph's earliest
recorded revelations, received at Harmony, Pennsylvania in March 1829. The
revelation was provoked by Martin Harris' desire to confirm Joseph's possession
of an ancient record inscribed on gold plates.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">I have imposed several editorial
earmarks on the text for the reader's convenience. [Bracketed Numbers] are
inserted in reference to the modern LDS versification of this revelation
(D&C 5:1-20). [Bracketed Letters/Words] are inserted for clarification
where helpful. <s>Struckthrough Words</s> are significant portions of
text from the manuscripts that were omitted for publication. <b>Boldface
Words</b> are new additions to the text not corroborated by any of the
early manuscripts; sometimes these fragments replace previous terms or phrases
and other times are interpolated seamlessly into the original. <i>Italicised
Words</i> reflect a change in tense, perspective, or quantity.
Capitalization and punctuation are also accurately represented.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“March 1829 Revelation to Joseph Smith,
Jr. and Martin Harris," from the Newell K. Whitney Collection (D&C 5):</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[1] Behold I say unto you that my servant hath desired A witness
that my servant Joseph hath got the things which he hath testified that he hath
got</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[2] and now Behold this shall ye say unto him I the Lord am God I
have given these things unto him & I have commanded him that he should
stand as a witness of these things</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[3] nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a
covenant with me that he should not show them except I command him & he
hath no power over them e[x]cept I grant it unto him</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[4] & he hath A gift to translate the Book & I have
commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift for I will grant unto him
no other gift</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[5] and verily I say unto you that woe shall come unto the
Inhabitents of the Earth if they will not hearken unto my words</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[7] for Behold if they will not believe my words they would not
believe my servants if it were possible he could show them all things</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[8] O ye unbelieving ye stiffnecked Generation</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[9] Behold I have reserved the things which have been spoken of
which I have entrusted to my servant for a wise purpose in me & it shall be
made known unto future Generations</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[10] but for this Generation they shall have my word</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[11] yea & the testimony of three of my servants shall go
forth with my word unto this Generation</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[12] yea three shall know of a surety that those things are true</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[13] for I will give them power that they may Behold & view
those things as they are</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[14] & to none else will I grant this power among this
Generation</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[15] & the testimony of three Witnesses will I send forth
& my word</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[16] & behold whosoever believeth in my word him will I visit
with the manifestations of my spirit & they shall be Born of me</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[18] & their testimony Shall also go forth & thus if the
People of this Generation harden not their hearts I will work a reformation among
them & I will put down all lieings & deceivings & Priestcraft &
envyings & strifes & Idolatries and sorceries & all manner of
Iniquities & I will establish my Church yea even the church which was
taught by my Desiples [Disciples] & now if this Generation do harden their
hearts against my words Behold I deliver them up unto Satan for he reigneth
& hath much Power at this time for he hat got great hold upon the hearts of
the People of this Generation & how far from the iniquities of Sodom and
Gomorrah do they come at this time & Behold the Sword of justice doth hang
above their heads & if they persist in the hardness of the[i]r hearts the
time cometh that it must fall upon them</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[20]Behold I tell you these things even as I also told the People
of the destruction of Jerusalem & my word shall be verified at this time as
it hath hitherto been verrified."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">1835 LDS Doctrine & Covenants,
section 32 (D&C 5):</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Behold I say unto you, that <b>as </b>my servant <b>Martin
Harris</b> <i>has</i> desired a witness <b>at my hand</b>, that <b>you</b>, my
servant Joseph <b>Smith, jr.</b>, <i>have</i> got the <s>things</s> <b>plates
of</b> which <b>you </b><i>have</i> testified <b>and
borne record </b>that <b>you have received of me</b>:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“and now behold, this shall <i>you</i> say unto
him, <b>He who spake unto you said unto you</b>, I the Lord am
God, <b>and</b> have given these things unto <b>you</b>, <b>my
servant Joseph Smith, jr.</b> <i>and</i> <s>I</s> have
commanded <b>you</b> that <b>you shall</b> stand as a
witness of these things,</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[3] <s>nevertheless</s> <b>and </b>I have
caused <b>you</b> that <b>you</b> should enter into a
covenant with me that <b>you</b> should not show them except <b>to
those persons to whom </b>I <i>commanded</i> <b>you</b>; <i>and</i> <b>you</b> <i>have</i> no
power over them except I grant it unto <b>you</b>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[4] <i>And</i> <b>you</b> <i>have</i> a gift
to translate the <s>Book</s> <b>plates; and</b> <b>this is the
first gift that I bestowed upon you</b>, <i>and </i>I have
commanded <s>him</s> that <b>you</b> <i>should</i> pretend
to no other gift <b>until my purpose is fulfilled in this</b>; for I will
grant unto <b>you</b> no other gift <b>until it is finished</b>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[5] <s>and</s> Verily I say unto you, that <i>wo</i> shall
come unto the inhabitants of the Earth if they will not hearken unto my words”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[7] for <b>hereafter you shall be ordained and go forth and
deliver my words unto the children of men</b>. Behold if they will not believe
my words, they would not believe <b>you</b>, my <i>servant</i> <b>Joseph</b>,
if it were possible <b>that you</b> could show them all <b>these </b>things <b>which
I have committed unto you</b>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[8] O <b>this</b> unbelieving <b>and</b> stiffnecked
generation, <b>mine anger is kindled against them</b>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[9] Behold <b>verily, I say unto you</b>, I have
reserved <b>those</b> things <s>which have been spoken of</s> which
I have entrusted <i>unto</i> <b>you</b>, my servant <b>Joseph</b>,
for a wise purpose in me, <i>and</i> it shall be made known unto
future generations;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[10] but <s>for</s> this generation <s>they</s> shall
have my word <b>through you</b>;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[11] <s>yea</s> <i>And</i> <b>in addition to your
testimony </b>the testimony of three of my servants, <b>whom I shall
call and ordain, unto whom I will show these things</b>: <b>and they</b> shall
go forth with my <i>words</i> <b>that are given through you,</b> <s>unto
this Generation</s></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[12] yea, <s>three</s> <b>they </b>shall know of
a surety that <i>these</i> things are true:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[13] for <b>from heaven will I declare it unto them</b>: I
will give them power that they may behold <i>and </i>view <i>these</i> things
as they are;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[14] <i>And </i>to none else will I grant this
power, <b>to receive this same testimony</b>, among this generation, <b>in
this, the beginning of the rising up, and the coming forth of my church out of
the wilderness – clear as the moon and fair as the sun and terrible as an army
with banners</b>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[15] <i>And </i>the testimony of three witnesses will I
send forth <b>of</b> my word.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[16] <i>And</i> behold, whosoever believeth <b>in</b> my <i>words</i>, <i>them</i> will
I visit with the <i>manifestation</i> of my Spirit; <i>and</i> they
shall be born of me, <b>even of water and of the Spirit</b>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“<b>[17] And you must wait yet a little while; for ye are not yet
ordained – </b> </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[18] <i>And</i> their testimony shall also go
forth <s>& thus if the People</s> <b>unto the condemnation </b>of
this generation <b>if they </b>harden <s>not</s> their
hearts <b>against them:</b> <s>I will work a reformation among them
& I will put down all lieings & deceivings & Priestcraft &
envyings & strifes & Idolatries and sorceries & all manner of
Iniquities & I will establish my Church yea even the church which was
taught by my Desiples & now if this Generation do harden their hearts
against my words Behold I deliver them up unto Satan for he reigneth & hath
much Power at this time for he hat got great hold upon the hearts of the People
of this Generation & how far from the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah do
they come at this time & Behold the Sword of justice doth hang above their
heads & if they persist in the hardness of the[i]r hearts the time cometh
that it must fall upon them</s></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“<b>[19] for a desolating scourge shall go forth among the
inhabitants of the earth, and shall continue to be poured out, from time to
time, if they repent not, until the earth is empty, and the inhabitants thereof
are consumed away, and utterly destroyed by the brightness of my coming.</b></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[20] Behold I tell you these things even as I also told the
people of the destruction of Jerusalem, <i>and</i> my word shall be
verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Many other revelations received similar
treatment in the first publication of the Doctrine & Covenants. What
meaning should these alterations communicate to the Latter-day Saints? From the
perspective of one having grown up in the church<b> </b>– mission, temple
endowment, sealing and all – learning these facts seems to demand a
dramatic shift in the orthodox Mormon conception of revelation, prophecy, and
scripture.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Should the modern D&C rely on the
earliest available manuscript versions (like the Bible) or on the 1835 edition
as it does currently? Should Latter-day Saints have the opportunity to insert
redactions and revisions into their own revelations in like manner? Should the
scriptures instead be recognized as subjective, faithful musings, only
reflective of their contemporary culture? Finally, if it is the case that God's
Word is only truly revelatory in hindsight, of what utility is it for us here
in the present?</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Sources:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">– Marquardt, ed., <i>The
Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary</i>, pp. 26-29</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">– Bench,
ed., <i>The Parallel Doctrine and Covenants: The 1832-1833, 1833, and 1835
Editions of Joseph Smith's Revelations</i>, pp. 5-7</span></div>
</div>
</div>
ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-61520789564741949092012-10-23T18:00:00.002-07:002015-01-05T14:43:44.332-08:00Darwinian Deity: The Evolution of the Mormon Concept of God – Part III –<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Continued from <a href="http://theantianti.blogspot.com/2012/06/darwinian-deity-evolution-of-mormon.html">Part
II</a>…</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Having previously established the
disruptive evolution of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal teachings concerning God –
from tentative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism">Modalism</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism">Binitarianism</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Trinity">Social Trinitarianism</a> –
I will now demonstrate how the prophet’s last contributions on the subject led
to a radical, new pluralistic conception of the Godhead. In the generations
that followed, his patriarchal brand of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism">Henotheism</a> (or
territorial polytheism) eventually led to a mass of doctrinal contention and
confusion concerning the identity of deity; yet it also led to the pinnacle of
Mormonism’s theological speculation and charisma. The prophet’s own words on
the matter are insightful: “If we start right, it is easy to go right all the
time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to
get right.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">On June 16, 1844, the Saints were
gathered beneath billowing storm clouds just East of the Nauvoo temple to hear
their prophet’s Sunday morning sermon. The first and final press of the Nauvoo
Expositor (available <a href="http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/nauvoo_expositor.pdf">here</a>) had been
issued only a week prior, so many were likely anxious for a rebuttal. The paper
had been published by a slew of soured apostates still fuming over the
discovery of Joseph’s hidden agendas – things “taught secretly, and denied
openly.” Polygamy and politics aside, they complained that Joseph was teaching
false doctrines and was therefore a fallen prophet. Whereas they believed “that
the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, …
is verily true,” yet they insisted that he was introducing new blasphemies like
“the doctrine of many Gods.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">According to the Expositor’s editor,
former-First Presidency member William Law, Joseph “contended that there are
innumerable gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he
is above us.” It is true; beginning with a powerful funeral sermon in April,
the prophet openly taught that God was an exalted man and advised, “you have
got to learn how to be gods yourselves … the same as all gods have done before
you.” Evidently William and others had some difficulty correlating these new
ideas with the previously published revelations. So it was that Joseph took to
the pulpit just days before his death and expounded a climactic discourse on
the plurality of Gods:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus
Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy
Ghost as a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three
distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New
Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and
who can contradict it? Our text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests
unto God and His Father.' The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods
above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was
to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a
God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow – three in
one, and one in three! … I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he
reasoned concerning the God of heaven. ‘In order to do that,' said
he, ‘suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist – two
men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another
who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another,
so that there is no end to them.'</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“If Abraham reasoned thus – If Jesus Christ was the Son of God,
and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may
suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?
And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a
tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything
comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that
which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had
a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine,
for the Bible is full of it.” (Smith, <i>History of the Church</i>, Vol.
6, p. 473; “<a href="http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/PDF/GROVE.pdf"><i>Sermon
in the Grove</i></a><i>"</i>)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">As a student approaching Nauvoo’s
uniquely LDS views of Trinitarian ontology, it is readily apparent that Joseph
Smith’s late revelations deftly defied the Biblical purview while at the same
time explicitly citing its support. Previous theological distinctions fell
mostly within the confines of historical Christianity’s heretical
contemplations, but the overt shift to polytheism proved a sharp contrast for
many. Protestant cries of ‘Heresy!’ notwithstanding, Joseph’s position as
prophetic revelator permitted him to interpolate these ideas back into the
scriptural canon ‘ex nihilo’ (i.e. out of nothing). He borrowed from disparate
and abstruse biblical passages to certify in a moment what his revelations
illustrated over time – that his doctrine was culturally accrued.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">There are two specific cultural
experiences that I believe were major factors in the late evolution of Joseph
Smith’s pluralistic theology: namely, his efforts to learn biblical Hebrew and
reinterpret biblical text, and his translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics into
the Book of Abraham. These two experiences had profound effects on the doctrinal
teachings of Mormonism’s founder. Significantly, both of them ultimately trace
their motivational origin back to Joseph’s beginnings in magic folk culture.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In his boyhood, Joseph Smith inherited a
strong affinity for the occult sciences due to the influence of his father and
brothers. Indeed, it appears it was a family practice; magic parchments,
lamens, and a ceremonial dagger survive as authentic Joseph Smith family
heirlooms. Lucy Mack Smith’s biography of her son the prophet, told that
“trying to win the faculty of abrac[,] drawing magic circles, [and]
soothsaying” were among “important interest[s]” for the family in those early
years (Ingleton, comp., <i>History of Joseph Smith by his Mother</i>, p.
109). Joseph certainly had other magic mentors in the community as well, from
amateurs like Sally Chase to professional conmen like alchemist-magician, Luman
Walters, who joined the church early on for a brief period. At a young age,
Joseph showed a remarkable capacity for “peeping” and eventually succeeded his
father, his siblings, and his peers as the village scryer (or <i>seer</i>).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">So what is significant about this
magical heritage in relation to Joseph’s translation projects, and ultimately
the changing Mormon doctrine of God? Put straightforwardly, his upbringing resulted
in a lifelong fascination with mystery religion, and more specifically aspects
of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism">Hermetic
tradition</a>. Hermeticism emphasizes hidden wisdom, in three related
practices: that of Alchemy, Astrology, and Theurgy. Many themes common in these
philosophical practices show up in Joseph’s peculiar interpretations of
protestant Christian dogma, and are the natural result of his heterodox faith
framework. Because mystery religions rely so heavily on symbolic
interpretation, it is not surprising that Joseph perpetually interpreted and
reinterpreted scripture and doctrine throughout the duration of his calling
(and with little regard for consistency). Although he later deemphasized his
involvement with the occult and its popular appendages – treasure-digging,
spirit conjuring, crystal-gazing, etc. – the influence of American rural
mysticism shows through quite clearly at various points in his prophetic career.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">For example, occult conventions sanctify
patterns of three; the same ritual finds prominence in many aspects of
Mormonism – particularly in early accounts of Joseph Smith’s spiritual
epiphanies. Another is signified by the prophet’s obsessive concern with
reconnecting to humanity’s primal mystics, from Adam & Eve to the Jewish
patriarchs and so forth; this is a hallmark of the hermetic subculture.
Additionally, Joseph was provoked, both privately and in his public ministry,
to extract meaning from the planets and stars in their celestial movements. In
this respect, Abraham 3 follows hermeticism’s philosophy of astrology exactly.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Perhaps the biggest giveaway, however,
is in the thoroughly hermetic conviction that sacred languages have hidden
meanings, and that God’s noblest servants are the exclusive custodians of
secret rituals and philosophies required to recover these higher spiritual
truths. Is it any wonder that his first major revelatory production proclaimed,
“A seer is greater than a prophet … a seer is a revelator and a prophet also;
and a gift which is greater can no man have … by them shall all things be
revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things
shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by
them” (Mosiah 8:15-17)?</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The religious undercurrent revolving
around “seership” traces its alternative influences back millennia before
Christ, to times when the newly distinguished Semitic religion competed with
local “wisdom cults” for dominance. Ideas were incestuous in that early period,
and philosophies constantly mingled. As a result, it was common even for
Israelite priests and shamans to consult sacred runes that conveyed hidden
truths and imbued supernatural powers. The Semites eventually came to revere
the Hebrew script as a sacred vessel of God’s word, and his power. This same
Gnostic vein reputedly thrived in Egypt when Moses combated the legendary
sorcerers, Jannes and Jambres, in pharaoh’s court. Anthropological studies in
Joseph Smith’s time suggest these “magicians” were typically understood as
harnessing divine powers, and were notably “skilled in the interpretation
of <i>hieroglyphical characters</i>” (1823 ed. of <i>Jahn’s Biblical
Archaeology </i>as cited in Quinn, <i>Early Mormonism and the Magic
World View</i>, p. 32, <i>emphasis</i> mine).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Some of Israel’s latter prophets seem to
have inherited a similar culture of esoteric symbolism and Gnostic motifs
during the Babylonian exile; the same tradition that was shortly purged into
obscurity by King Josiah’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomic_reform#Religious_reforms">Deuteronomic
reform</a>. But it found repeated resurgence and marginalization in the
centuries that followed, viz. in Essenism, Christian Gnosticism, Freemasonry,
Rosicrucianism, Kabbalah, etc. All of these various traditions draw on the same
hermetic motifs, and most importantly, they contributed greatly to the
philosophy and culture of American folk magic. Michael Quinn’s thorough
treatise on the subject points out the popular antebellum views on Egyptian
hieroglyphics in particular:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“The conventional Anglo-American view was that Egyptian
‘characters and hieroglyphics were occult symbols invented by Hermes
Trismegistus, the father of the ancient occult sciences [or the <i>Hermetic</i> tradition].
… The 1811 New York edition of Adam Clarke’s popular commentary on the Bible
observed that the word ‘magicians … may probably mean no more than <i>interpreters
of abstruse and difficult subjects</i>; and especially of the <i>Egyptian
hieroglyphics</i>, an art which is now entirely lost.” (Quinn, <i>Early
Mormonism and the Magic World View</i>, p. 194, <i>emphasis</i> his)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The point is that Joseph’s childhood was
steeped in a strange conglomeration of magical mysticism and frontier
Christianity that encouraged his later translation endeavors and strongly
affected their outcome. His earliest interactions with the supernatural were
blatantly occult; they involved the conjuring of a deceased spirit by the
use of a peep stone and astrological calculations in pursuit of hidden
treasures in the earth – valuable lost relics containing hidden
wisdom which once belonged to the ancients. Clay Chandler’s article, <a href="http://dialoguejournal.metapress.com/media/h83ak041pp6juh405h2m/contributions/p/r/4/m/pr4mhgmy1ubh7yh7.pdf">Scrying
For The Lord</a>, presents an excellent study of the translation of the Book of
Mormon in relation to Joseph's background in mysticism. Joseph's subsequent
efforts at interpretation followed a similar course, but with more restrained
hermetic content. The same mechanics involving revelation of ancient parchments
and secret systems are consistently present; however, it was not until the
latter-half of Joseph’s career that its influence on his
doctrine fully resurged.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Keeping in mind Joseph’s background and
his previously cited claim to consistency, let’s first try a critical reading
of the Book of Abraham text alone as a case study. The first few chapters
propound monotheism as the overarching theme and strongly sanctify an aversion
from acknowledging alternative deities. These notions are largely consistent
with the late Jewish Deuteronomic movement’s emphasis on Jehovah as one
true God – in other words, the cultural context that produced the Old
Testament (which postdates the patriarchs by more than a millennium).
Abraham reports conditions in Chaldea, saying, “My fathers … turned from their righteousness,
and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them,
unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen. … Virgins were offered up
because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of
stone” (Abr. 1:5, 11). The pluralistic religious culture in Abraham’s
environment is associated with human sacrifice and idolatry, which he resists.
These cultists respond with hostility, and he records a divine interposition:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“As they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me
up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God,
and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the
Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed
my bands;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is
Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take
thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange
land which thou knowest not of;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And this because they have turned their hearts away from me, to
worship the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah,
and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; therefore I have
come down to visit them, and to destroy him who hath lifted up his hand against
thee, Abraham, my son, to take away thy life.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Behold, I will lead thee by my hand, and I will take thee, to put
upon thee my name, even the Priesthood of thy father, and my power shall be
over thee.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“As it was with Noah so shall it be with thee; but through thy
ministry my name shall be known in the earth forever, for I am thy God.” (Abr.
1:15-19)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The Almighty God saves Abraham from his
captors and reveals himself as Jehovah, destroyer of pagan worship. Although
these passages seem to discredit the biblical narrative on one hand (<a href="http://bible.cc/exodus/6-3.htm">Exo. 6:3</a>), they definitely cement
Jehovah’s reputation as a jealous god. The Lord God further asserts his
singular sovereignty over humanity and the cosmos:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I have purposed to take thee away out of Haran, and to make of
thee a minister to bear my name in a strange land which I will give unto thy
seed after thee for an everlasting possession, <i>when they hearken to my
voice</i>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“For I am the Lord thy God; I dwell in heaven; the earth is my
footstool; I stretch my hand over the sea, and it obeys my voice; I cause the
wind and the fire to be my chariot; I say to the mountains—Depart hence—and
behold, they are taken away by a whirlwind, in an instant, suddenly.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning;
therefore my hand shall be over thee.” (Abr 2: 6, 7, 8)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Abraham and his kin travel through the
land of Canaan, an “idolatrous nation,” and the chapter terminates with their
arrival in Egypt. At this point the narrative takes an abrupt turn. Although
Abraham mentions a record in his possession concerning the creation of the
planets and his intent to share it in his own narrative, the remainder of
Abraham’s record instead consists of a spectacular visionary rehearsal of the
very same material: astronomical relativity and a modified creation myth. Here
God narrates for the patriarchal prophet the order of cosmological governance
in the universe. The Lord then reveals an astronomical rule with <i>astronomical</i> implications:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there
shall be greater things above them…</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“If there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be
above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it…</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“As, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more
intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more
intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall
have no end, they shall exist after, for they are … eternal.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there
are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be
another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more
intelligent than they all.” (Abr. 3:16-19)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Abraham learns that there is almost
infinite gradation among the intelligent spirits, both above and below. But
Jehovah God is quick to put a cap on this line of logic. “I am the Lord thy
God, I am more intelligent than they all.” Here then is the reasoning that
Joseph Smith makes reference to in his argument for the plurality of Gods,
although by 1844 he ignores Jehovah’s claims to absolute supremacy. The
gradation principle in combination with the concept of spirit eternality is the
seed from which Joseph’s Nauvoo theology blooms; it’s a real breaching point
from traditional Christian ontology (i.e. the created/uncreated gap).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The remainder of the Book of Abraham
qualifies as the strongest, most explicit scriptural support for Joseph’s
pluralistic views of the Godhead and a divine pre-mortal council. Still
insisting on his consummate dominion, the Lord God nevertheless councils with
his co-existent spirits. One of them proposes the creation of a world on which
man may exist and be tested:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the
midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among
those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me:
Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he
said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there,
and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these
may dwell;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all
things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and
they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom
with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate
shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.” (Abr. 3:23-26)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">After the Lord selects a savior from
amidst the congregation, Abraham regurgitates a creation account similar to
Genesis, but altered in light of the new, revealed cosmology. A not-so-subtle
polytheistic veneer then takes the limelight. Virtually every pronoun in the
rendition is plural or followed by a brief parenthetical clarification, leaving
no doubt as to the status of God’s pre-Earth collaborators. Who created the
world? They, the Gods!</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the
earth.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate,
because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon
the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of
the waters.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was
light. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go
down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the
image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.” (Abr.
4:1-3, 26, 27)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The fifth and final chapter of the Book
of Abraham continues the biblical recitation in like manner. The creation
narrative is reported as a joint venture between the Gods; they take counsel
together and are thereafter referenced exclusively in the aggregate.
As I consider this critical reading as a whole, the developing portrayal of
deity throughout Abraham’s record seems to correlate loosely with the timing of
Joseph’s progressive doctrinal insights up to the end of his career. In this
respect, I believe the Book of Abraham may be viewed as a microcosm for the
later development of the prophet’s own conception of God. To wit, the evidence
strongly suggests that Abraham was not written in a single series of successive
dictations like the Book of Mormon. Quite the contrary, it was a production
composed of material gathered over several years’ time, analogous to the
chronology of Joseph’s parallel epiphanies. Consider now the evidence regarding
the translation process of the Egyptian papyrus.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Around July 3, 1835, Michael Chandler
traveled to Kirtland, Ohio soliciting an exhibition of four Egyptian mummies
and several rolls of papyrus containing Egyptian hieroglyphics. Given Joseph
Smith’s past with Egyptian characters and the occult, Chandler’s presence
excited a great deal of enthusiasm from the Saints who were anxious to hear the
prophet’s assessment of these “curiosities.” According to John Whitmer’s
commissioned history, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record[s] and by the
revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records, which gave an account
of our forefathers, <s>even abraham</s> … Which when all translated
will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints” (Westergren,
ed., <i>From Historian to Dissident: The Book of John Whitmer</i>, 167).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Joseph encouraged the purchase of
Chandler’s mummies and the several rolls of papyrus which they transacted for
the amount of $2400. Joseph identified the hieroglyphics as the writings of
Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, as well as the record of Katumin, an Egyptian
princess. He promised a translation of the texts, and began in earnest within
days. Of course, the Book of Abraham is the only scripture that was ever
published as a result of these efforts. Along with my interjected commentaries,
the following timeline contains a few helpful documentary citations that
evidence both the translation’s progress and the first public mention of key
doctrines/concepts later subsumed in the Book of Abraham:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[July 6-8, 1835] Joseph Smith: “With W.W. Phelps and Oliver
Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or
hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the
writings of Abraham.” (<i>HOTC</i> 2:236)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[July 17-31, 1835] Joseph Smith: “The remainder of this
month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of
Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the
ancients." (<i>HOTC</i> 2:238)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Sept. 1835] Oliver Cowdery borrows language from Abraham 1:2 in
transcribing earlier patriarchal blessing records: “We diligently sought for
the right of the fathers and the authority of the Holy Priesthood, and the
power to administer in the same; for we desired to be followers of
righteousness and the possessors of greater knowledge, even the knowledge of
the mysteries of the Kingdom of God.” (<i>Patriarchal Blessings Book</i> 1:15,
Church History Library, as cited in Hauglid, <i>A Textual History of the
Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions</i>, p. 214)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Sept. 11, 1835] W.W. Phelps: “Nothing has been doing in the
translation of the Egyptian Record for a long time, and probably will not for
some time to come.” (W.W. Phelps Letter to Sally Phelps, Sept. 11, 1835)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Oct. 1, 1835] Joseph Smith: “This after noon labored on
the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brsr [sic] O Cowdery and W W Phelps: The
system of astronomy was unfolded." (Jessee, <i>The Joseph Smith
Papers: Journals</i>, Vol. 1, p. 67)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Oct. 7, 1835] Joseph Smith: “This afternoon recommenced
translating the ancient reccords [sic].” (<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 71)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Nov. 19-26, 1835] Joseph Smith: “Spent the day in translating the
Egyptian records … made rapid progress, [etc.]” (<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 107)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Dec. 16, 1835] Joseph Smith: “Elder[s] … called and paid me a
visit, … I exhibited and explained the Egyptian Records to them , and explained
many things to them concerning the dealings of God with the ancient<s>
and the formation of the planetary System.” (<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 123, 124)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Dec. 1835] Oliver Cowdery: “When the translation of these
valuable documents will be completed, I am unable to say.” (LDS <i>Messenger
and Advocate</i>, Dec. 1835)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">By 1836, translation manuscripts Ab1-Ab4
were scribed by W.W. Phelps, Frederick G. Williams, and Warren Parrish,
containing Abraham 1:1-2:18, as well as various <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Egyptian_papers">Egyptian Alphabet
& Grammar (EAG)</a> materials. All of these documents are unique among
the Abraham manuscripts because the text is composed opposite hieroglyphic
characters in the margins, taken from the Egyptian papyrus. This indicates
Joseph and company’s earliest intentions to perform a linear translation, which
intent is notably absent from Nauvoo-era Book of Abraham manuscripts. Although
the ‘Ab’ documents suggest some editorial iteration between manuscripts, these
materials were initially produced by dictation, perhaps using Joseph’s seer
stone.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In terms of content, the earliest text
produced contains themes and views that are largely consistent with Joseph’s
views circa 1835-1836. KJV Genesis 1, 2, 11, and 12 are clearly incorporated
into the text, as well as other sources that will be discussed shortly.
Strikingly, contemporary witnesses were most impressed by the scroll’s
description of “the formation of the planetary System” rather than the
available Book of Abraham text at the time. Because there is no manuscript
evidence for the existence of Abraham 3 until late 1841, and contemporary
descriptions of Abraham’s “system of astronomy” are consonantly vague, these
witnesses are almost certainly describing the material found in the Egyptian
Alphabet & Grammar (or Joseph’s descriptions of that material). To be sure,
ideas and elements of the EAG project eventually contributed to the formation
of Abraham 3 as it was published in 1842. However, there are many, many odd,
substantial variations as well. I’ll briefly interrupt the timeline to show a
few relevant excerpts from the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar (presented in
the original as transliterations and translations opposite Egyptian characters):</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Ho-e-oop-hah-phah-eh]: The principle of rule, or ruling or
reigning upon the principle of Justice equity and righteousness.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Zub-Zool-eh]: The earth as it was in the beginning: or at its
creation; creation or beginning.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Zub-eh[:] To be with as <i>[in?]</i>, as light is in the
earth.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Zub[:] pointing to that which has been created To the first institution
or first principle. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Jah-oh-eh[:] The earth under the governing power of oliblish,
Enish go on dosh, and Kai e van rash, which are the grand <s>governing</s> Key
or in other words, the governi<i>[n]</i>g power, which governs the fifteen
fixed stars (twelve ________) that <s>belong</s> governs the earth,
sun, & moon, (which have their power in one) with the other twelve moving
planets of this system. Oliblish – Enish go on dosh, and Kaii ven rash, are the
three grand central <s>stars which</s> powers that govern all the
other creations, which have been sought out by the most aged of all
fathers, since the beginning of the creation, by means of the Unim and Thummim:
The names of the other twelve of the fixed stars are: Kolob, Limdi, Zip, Vusel,
Venisti, Waine, Way oh- ox- oan, oansli, _Kible Shineflis, flis, os. The
Egyptian names of the fifteen moving planets are: Oan isis, Flos isis, floe se:
Abbesels, Ele ash, Subble, Slundlo, Car roam, Crash ma Kraw, obbles isim, I
zins bah, missel Nah mesile Ohee oop Zah, Zool.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Flo-ees[:] The moon, the earth and the sun in their annual
revolutions.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Flos-isis] – The highest degree of light, be[-]cause its
component parts are light. The gove<i>[r]</i>ning principle of light
Because God has said Let this be the centre for light, and let there be bounds
that it may not pass. He hath set a cloud round about in the heavens, and the
light of the grand gover<i>[n]</i>ing of 15 fixed stars centre there – and from
there its is drawn by the heavenly bodies according to their portions;
according to the decrees that God hath set, as the bounds of the ocean, that it
should not pass over as a flood, so God has set the bounds of light lest it
pass over and consume the planets.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Kli-flosisis:] signifies Kolob in its motion, which is swifter
than the rest of the twelve fixed stars; going before, being first in motion,
being delegated to have power over others to regulate others in their time, for
example, one cubit of times signifies <s>six</s> three days
Therefore that which is appointed to run <s>six</s> three days, runs
one cubit according to the measure of time in cubits a cubit of motion is
increased or lessened according to the sign of the degrees.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Veh Kli flos-isis[:] it signifies less power than the fo<i>[u]</i>rth
fixed governing star but greater power than the sixth governing <s>star</s> fixt <i>[fixed?]</i> star,
in consequ<i>[e]</i>nce of its slowness of motion.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Kolob[:] signifies the first creation nearer to the Celestial, or
the residence of God, first in government, the last pertaining to the
measurement according <s>according</s> to Celestial time which
signifies one day to a cubit which day is equal to a thousand years according
to the measurement of this earth or Jah-oh-eh. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Kahtu-ain-tri-eth]: An other Kingdom governed by different laws,
a second King, or governed by another or second person not having been exalted.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Zip-Zi-Iota-veh:] I saw five women.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Jah-ni-hah] – one that with delegated and redeeming power, and
second in authority; being a swift messenger going before, and having redeeming
power, as second in authority: and stand<i>[s]</i> next to _______
an the right hand of power.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Jah-oh-eh – The earth and power of attraction it has with the
third fixed Star, which is called Kui-e ven-ra_h.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Flo-ees. The moon in its revolutions with earth, showing or
signifying the earth going between, thereby forming an eclipse. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Kolob in the second degree[:] It signifies the wonder of Abraham
the eldest of all the Stars, the greatest body of the heavenly bodies that ever
was discovered by man.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Ah me-os – God without beginning or end.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Al-ki-beth:] minister of God under or the less.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Ba-eth-ku:] The next from Adam, one one ordained under him, a
patriarch or the right of the firstborn. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Kolob in the first degree:] It signifies the first great grand
governing fixed star which is the fartherest that ever has been discovered by
the fathers which was discovered by Methusela and also by Abraham.”
(Marquardt, <i>The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers</i>, p. 40,41,52-59,68-73;
sic all, <i>italics</i> his)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">This material has never been published
by the church, although it was translated with the same authority as the Book
of Abraham text at the time, and is obviously the rudimentary basis for more
than Abraham’s astronomy (see Christopher C. Smith’s “The Dependence of Abraham
1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,” <i>JWHA Journal</i>, Vol. 29,
p. 38ff.). If the now defunct EAG can be taken as token, Joseph was in
1835-1836 contemplating God’s supreme eternality, his role as creator, his use
of delegation and hierarchical order of governance, and also a belief in
relative measurements in the universe. The details hadn’t quite been ironed out
yet, but like Abraham Joseph desired to convey “a knowledge of the beginning of
the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made
known unto the fathers” (Abr. 1:31).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Here again we see the substantial
evidences of Joseph’s background in mystical hermeticism. Although Abraham 3
was most likely not produced for several more years, we can see reflections of
sources in the EAG. And the Abraham content produced up to this point is
closely paralleled by several available resources in Smith’s surroundings –
resources we know he was exposed to. Historian Grant Palmer cites them at
length:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“In 1835, the year [Joseph] produced the opening chapters of
Abraham, his counselor Oliver Cowdery, in the <i>Messenger and Advocate</i>,
mentioned Josephus three times in interpreting the pictures from the ‘Joseph of
Egypt’ scroll. In the <i>Antiquities of the Jews</i>, Josephus wrote about
how Noah, who had trouble with his son Ham, ‘cursed his posterity,’ whereas the
lineage of Abraham and others ‘escaped that curse.’ Joseph Smith expanded this
original curse (Gen. 9:20-27) to include denial of priesthood ordination to
blacks (Abr. 1:21-26) [which was also a very common view of the time.] …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Josephus further identified Abraham as a resident of Chaldea and
‘a person of great sagacity’ who ‘began to have higher notions of virtue than
others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men
happened then to have concerning God.’ Abraham’s preaching was not welcome.
They ‘raised a tumult against him … and by the assistance of God, he came and
lived in the land of Canaan.’ While in Canaan, a land promised to his
posterity, Abraham encountered a famine. This brought him and his wife Sarah to
Egypt, where he successfully pretended to be his wife’s brother.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“The pharaoh eventually allowed him to ‘enter into conversation
with the most learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation his virtue
and his reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before. … He
communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of
astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those
parts of learning’ …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“The astronomical phrases and concepts in the [LDS] Abraham texts
were also common in Joseph Smith’s environment. For example, in 1816 Thomas
Taylor published a two-volume work called <i>The Six Books of Proclus on
the Theology of Plato</i>. Volume 2 (pp. 140-146) contains phrases and ideas
similar to the astronomical concepts in Abraham 3 and Facsimile No. 2. In these
six pages, Taylor calls the planets ‘governors’ and uses the terms ‘fixed stars
and planets’ and ‘grand key.’ Both works refer to the sun as a planet receiving
its light and power from a higher sphere rather than generating its own light
through hydrogen-helium fusion …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“LDS scholar R. Grant Athay, a research astronomer and director of
the University of Colorado Observatory, has written, ‘At the time that the Book
of Abraham was translated … the energy source of the sun was unknown,’ and ‘the
concept of one star influencing another was also a common concept of the time.”
(Cowdery, “Egyptian Mummies,” <i>Messenger and Advocate</i> 2:236;
Whiston, trans., <i>Flavius Josephus</i>, 1:6:37, 1:7:38, 1:8:39;
Taylor, <i>The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato</i>,
2:140-146; Athay, “Astronomy in the Book of Abraham,” <i>Book of Abraham
Symposium</i>, ix, p. 60,61; all as cited in Palmer, <i>An Insider’s View
of Mormon Origins</i>, pp. 17-22)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">An LDS academic, Klaus Hansen, expanded
on probable sources for what would eventually make up Abraham 3 – again,
sources that were possessed by Joseph Smith and quoted by Oliver Cowdery in
the <i>Messenger and Advocate</i>:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“The progressive aspect of Joseph’s theology, as well as its
cosmology, while in a general way compatible with antebellum thought, bears
some remarkable resemblances to Thomas Dick’s <i>Philosophy of a Future
State</i>, a second edition of which had been published in 1830. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Some very striking parallels to Smith’s theology suggest that the
similarities between the two may be more than coincidental. Dick’s lengthy
book, an ambitious treatise on astronomy and metaphysics, proposed the idea
that matter is eternal and indestructible and rejected the notion of a creation
ex nihilo. Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of
innumerable stars spread out over immeasurable distances. Dick speculated that
many of these stars were peopled by ‘various orders of intelligences’ and that
these intelligences were progressive beings’ in various stages of evolution
toward perfection.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“In the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on
astronomy and cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of
development likewise populate numerous stars. They, too, are called
‘intelligences.’ Dick speculated that ‘the systems of the universe revolve
around a common centre … the throne of God.’ In the Book of Abraham, one star
named Kolob ‘was nearest unto the throne of God.’ Other stars, in ever
diminishing order, were placed in increasing distances from this center.”
(Hansen, <i>Mormonism and the American Experience</i>, p. 79,80)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">All of these ideas were incorporated
into the Book of Abraham eventually. However, the translation process going
forward slowed considerably, leaving instead a very transparent
display of the gradual development in Joseph’s ideas in his public
discourse. It should be noted there is little indication that any progress was
made in the translation again until 1841. In view of the intervening period,
it's obvious the prophet’s attention was occupied elsewhere. 1836 and 1837
brought the Kirtland Safety Society scandal into focus, along with the Saints’
expulsion from Missouri, which produced rampant apostasy among the church’s
core membership. In 1838, Joseph was largely occupied with the migration and
reorganization of Mormon headquarters in Far West, Missouri – although he
evidently continued preaching the EAG material:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[May 6, 1838] Joseph Smith: “Instructed the Church, in the
mistories of the Kingdom of God; giving them a history of the planets &c.
and of Abrahams writings upon the Plannettary System &c.” (Jessee, <i>The
Joseph Smith Papers: Journals</i>, Vol. 1, p. 266; sic all)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Later that summer, William Swartzel says
he was involved in “getting out logs for brother Joseph Smith’s house, in which
he intends translating the hieroglyphics of the Egyptian mummies”
(Swartzel, <i>Mormonism Exposed</i>, p. 25). Unfortunately, bad politics
and neighbor relations led shortly to distractions with the Mormon War in
August. Joseph’s eventual surrender and subsequent incarceration once again
prevented any progress on the Book of Abraham. However, his time spent in
Liberty Jail served to reawaken within him mystic aspirations to reveal the
hidden things, things which were never before revealed:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Mar. 20, 1839] Joseph Smith: “God shall give unto you knowledge
by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has
not been revealed since the world was until now;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be
revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as
held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether
there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be
revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of
Jesus Christ.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas,
or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days,
months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all
their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the
dispensation of the fulness of times—</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council
of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be
reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter
into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. (“Letter from Liberty
Jail,” <i>HOTC</i>, 3:289–300; see also <i>D&C</i> 121:26-32)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">It is curious that this inspired
utterance seems at odds with what is eventually translated as the Book of
Abraham. Suggesting the disclosure of information “that has not been
revealed since the world was until now” surely implies Abraham and the
patriarchs were, like the Latter-day Saints up to this point, ignorant of the
plurality of Gods, the Lord’s astronomy, and the pre-mortal council. By all
accounts though, and contrary to his insistence in Nauvoo, this is the first
explicit suggestion in Joseph’s ministry that there was a multiplicity of Gods,
and that the Lord took council with them prior to the construction of this
planet. Considering this in tandem with the documentary evidence and the
silence of the Saints on the subject, we may with assurance infer that Joseph
had yet to fully formulate the latter half of Abraham’s record.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">His release from incarceration and
transfer to Nauvoo did not immediately mean the continuation of the translation
process, however. As well as addressing economic and political concerns, Joseph
first sought to refresh the Saints with new and expanded cosmological teachings
concerning God and man. Many of these themes would eventually find expression
in the Book of Abraham, and ultimately be combined to create his impactful King
Follett discourse. From 1839 going forward, Joseph Smith preached the
individuality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost with increasing publicity. For
example, he told Reverend George Moore: “We believe in three Gods, equal
in power and glory. There are three persons in heaven, but those three are not
one" (Moore Journal, June 3, 1842). His Nauvoo theology had indeed evolved
quite a distance since he translated the Book of Mormon's simplistic
soteriological-focused narrative. Continuing the timeline of Smith's
developing theology:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Aug. 8, 1839] Joseph Smith: “The Spirit of Man is not a created
being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity. Anything created
cannot be Eternal. … Our Savior speaks of Children & Says their angels
always stand before my father. The Father called all spirits before him at the
creation of Man & organized them. He (Adam) is the head, was told to
multiply. The Keys were given to him, and by him to others & he will have
to give an account of his Stewardship, & they to him.” (“<i>Willard
Richards Pocket Companion</i>” as cited in Cook, Ehat, <i>The Words of
Joseph Smith</i>, p. 9)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Dec. 1839] George Woodward: “The Prophet preached ‘upon astronomy
and told where God resided. It was very interesting.” (“<i>Woodward
Reminiscence</i>” as cited in <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 45, fn 1)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Feb. 5 1840] Joseph Smith: “I believe that God is eternal. That
he had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without
beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it
can have no end.” (<i>HOTC</i> 4:78-80)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Here we observe Joseph beginning to
abandon his identification of God as uniquely eternal. Now Joseph teaches the
spirit of man is expressly eternal or co-equal with God, whereas it had
previously only been suggested that “man was also in the beginning with God”
(D&C 93:29, circa May 1833) in general terms, perhaps referencing the
priority of man's spiritual rather than temporal creation (Moses 3:4,5). As
indicated earlier, the early portions of the Book of Abraham clearly portray
God in the context of the Old Testament name-title <i>Jehovah</i> (i.e. <i>I
Am That I Am</i>, usually contracted to <i>I Am</i> or <i>I
Shall Be </i>– meant to signify God’s unique eternal existence):
“Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah,” “I will take thee, to put upon thee my
name… my name shall be known in the earth <i>forever</i>, for <i>I am</i> thy
God,” “I will give unto thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession… For
I am the Lord thy God… My name is Jehovah[Eternal/Everlasting].” But in Nauvoo,
man <i>also</i> is from eternity to eternity.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">This change lays the foundation for a
pantheon of ruling Gods and elevates the significance of humanity in the
eternal scheme of things. This in turn led to other serious theological
transformations. By 1840, Joseph had already aired his intentions to disclose
that which had “not been revealed since the world was until now,” and by
introducing the doctrine of baptisms for the dead (again addressing the
immortality of the soul), he began to make good on that promise. In fine
Kirtland tradition, he made preparations for building a new temple in which
this ordinance could be revealed and practiced. But with the summer conversion
and hierarchical ascent of John C. Bennett in Nauvoo, the prophet’s hermetic
ambitions became freshly roused and shortly resumed the limelight.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In the short year leading up to
construction on the Nauvoo temple in 1841, Bennett became Mayor of Nauvoo,
University of Nauvoo chancellor, Assistant President of the Church, and close
personal confidant of Joseph Smith. He was also a staunch Freemason, and for months
campaigned for the establishment of a Mormon Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo. The <i>Times
and Seasons </i>editor during the period, Ebenezer Robinson, later
observed that “heretofore the church had strenuously opposed secret societies,
such as Free-Masons, Knights of Pithias, and all that class of secret societies
… but after Dr. Bennett came into the church a great change of sentiment seemed
to take place” (Robinson, <a href="http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/Return1.htm"><i>The Return</i></a>,
2:287).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">It is apparent that Bennett’s opinions
held tremendous weight with the impressionable prophet. For example, Bennett
had a history of extra-marital lasciviousness and promiscuous conduct – his
arrival in Nauvoo happens to parallel the onset of Joseph’s active efforts at
polygamy. Even longtime leadership like Sidney Rigdon were perturbed at
Joseph’s enchantment with Bennett. So while it is both plausible and
interesting that Richard Bushman suggests Hyrum Smith (the prophet’s brother
and a Freemason since New York times) as having likely shared details of the
Masonic rites with Joseph before his induction (Bushman, <i>Joseph Smith:
Rough Stone Rolling</i>, p. 449), it is more likely that Bennett was the main
Masonic influence. Much to Joseph’s chagrin after their fallout, history shows
Bennett had the propensity for “loose lips” on secretive subjects. Considering
how close they were at the time, it is altogether probable that Bennett
revealed the Masonic rites to Joseph between 1840-1841.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Regardless, Bennett’s obvious Masonic
interests and his peculiar terming of Joseph’s initial concept for the Council
of Fifty as an “Order of the Illuminati” clearly demonstrate his mutual
interest in hermetic institutions. In fact, once John C. Bennett achieves the
prophet’s good graces, we see all sorts of allusions to forthcoming revelations
of new, esoteric ordinances. These climaxed in the formal commission to build
the Nauvoo temple on January 19, 1841:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name,
that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept
hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the
dispensation of the fulness of times. And I will show unto my servant Joseph all
things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place
whereon it shall be built.” (D&C 124:40-42)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In the middle of March, Joseph finally
observed the Masonic rites firsthand during his initiation into the
newly-founded Nauvoo Masonic lodge. It was only two months later that Joseph
conducted a select few of his closest associates through the first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_(Mormonism)#The_Nauvoo_Endowment_and_Freemasonry">LDS
temple endowment</a>. Along with other threads relating to Joseph’s
Christian-occult upbringing, it relied heavily on borrowed Masonic components.
Plurality and council of Gods, pre-mortal man’s involvement in the creation,
transmission of secret teachings to Adam and Eve – all major aspects of
Joseph’s hermetic worldview. Not coincidentally, the same general materials
were assembled and published as the Book of Abraham during the exact same
period of time.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Before concluding the Book of Abraham
timeline and discussion, however, it will be constructive to make a few
observations about what specifically reignited Joseph’s interests in Hebrew
biblical studies during the same period. This will further exhibit how he
gleaned a polytheistic view of God from Genesis, the end result of which was
Abraham 4 & 5. Both of the following excerpts showcase the progress of his
theology to that point, showing that his Hebrew studies were probably as strong
a catalyst as Bennett’s influence in propelling him toward re-embracing the
ideals of the esoteric Christian tradition.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Jan. 5, 1841] Joseph Smith: “In the translation, ‘<i>without form
and void</i>’ it should read ‘<i>empty and desolate</i>.’ The word ‘created’
should be formed or organized. … That which is without body or parts is
nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones.
John 5[:]26, ‘As the father hath life in himself, even so hath he given the son
to have life in himself’. God the father took life unto himself precisely as
Jesus did.” (“<i>William Clayton’s Private Book</i>” as cited in Cook,
Ehat, <i>The Words of Joseph Smith</i>, p. 60; see also fns. 8,9 which say
respectively: Joseph here cites the substantial alterations made to “Inspired
Translation” manuscripts of Gen. 1:1,2 – changes made sometime subsequent to
the original 1830 translation process but incorporated exactly in Abraham
4:1,2; also, this occasion was the Prophet’s first recorded mention of God the
Father having a mortal probation and a physical, resurrected body – Ehat calls
it a launch into new, distinctive doctrinal territory!)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Probably early 1841] William Clayton quoting Joseph Smith:
“Everlasting Covenant was made between three personages before the organization
of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth.
These personages according to Abraham’s record are called God the first, the
Creator, God the second, the Redeemer, and God the third, the Witness or Testator.”
(“<i>William Clayton’s Private Book,</i>” undated, as cited in <i>Ibid.</i>,
p. 220)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">By way of background on some of Joseph’s
history with Hebrew, the 1833-1836 Kirtland “School of the Prophets” was a
foundational factor in latent LDS doctrinal distinctions. Much of their
discourse focused on ecclesiastical and scriptural training as preparation for
the elders’ impending missions. As discussed in a previous post, Sidney
Rigdon’s more rigid theological acumen pushed Joseph’s ideas into a more
systematic framework generally. Mormon doctrine afterwards became more taut,
more specific. In addition to spiritual pursuits, however, the lay ministry
regularly engaged in secular studies throughout the school’s duration. Key to
the prophet’s Book of Abraham text and his consummate Nauvoo teachings were his
early endeavors in studying biblical Hebrew with his brethren.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The First Presidency hired Joshua
Seixas, a fluent Hebraist and textbook writer from New York, to teach classical
Hebrew to the elders in the Kirtland school. He traveled there from nearby
Oberlin, Ohio and taught the eager Mormon students for about 3 months (26 Jan.
1836 – 29 Mar. 1836). Joseph Smith is reported to have been the school’s most
proficient pupil – no surprise considering his past enthusiasm for <i>linguistic
exercises</i>. Although Seixas’ basic investigations into the Hebrew syntax
(from his own textbook, <a href="http://archive.org/stream/manualhebrewgram03seix#page/n0/mode/2up">Manual
Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners</a>) most likely encouraged the
traditional Jewish interpretation of God, it was during these brief lectures
that Joseph first became aware of the ancient Semitic term Elohim/Eloheim.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Stated briefly, Elohim is the plural
form of the name-title Eloah (or Eloi), the expansion of an even older
Northwest Semitic term for God - <i>El</i>. In Hebrew, the ‘–im’ suffix
signifies a masculine plurality; this pluralism is most often quantitative in
nature, as in many angels (seraph-im, cherub-im). In the case of a few
exceptions, however, the intent can be specifically qualitative, as in a
multiplicity of attributes describing a singular subject. For example, the word
teraphim is a plural conjugation, but is most often used in the Tanakh (i.e.
Old Testament) with reference to <i>a </i>“terrible thing,” usually a
divining idol. The contextual grammar therefore conveys the tense.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">So despite the plural construction of
the word Elo(a)h-im, this primitive appellation for deity is almost always
considered singular because of its nearly universal connection with singular
verbs and adjectives. The vast majority of Hebrew linguists and theologians are
in agreement; Elohim is a singular term for God that emphasizes the plurality
of his virtues. This grammatical interpretation is reinforced by the Hebrew
scriptures’ monotheistic emphasis on Jehovah as “one true God,” and the only
being worthy of worship. The frequent biblical recurrence of the name-title
“Lord God [Jehovah Elohim]” is itself an affirmation of Jehovah as the only
“Elohim” for Israel. Thus the Jewish Shema: “Hear, O Israel: [Jehovah] is our
[Elohim], [Jehovah] is one” (Deut. 6:4).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">As I said, Joshua Seixas’ was a fairly
conventional Hebraist and by all indications, his instruction to the School of
the Prophets stuck closely to this basic understanding of Hebrew grammar and
the traditional Jewish etymology for God. Nevertheless, Joseph had by this
point already reevaluated his strictly monotheistic concept of deity, having
tentatively adopted Binitarianism (although one could argue that he only viewed
the Father as God in the true sense, with Jesus relegated to the position of demigod).
Did the concept of a covenanted council of Gods in Genesis first occur to
Joseph in Kirtland? If so, he gives no indication of it. Nevertheless, it may
well have been the planted seed that eventually blossomed in Nauvoo. What
pushed Joseph over the edge, causing him to reevaluate his previous “inspired
translations” of the Bible and reconsider his formal studies in Hebrew?</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Well, it just so happens that he
supplies the answer in his “Sermon in the Grove," cited at the start
of this article. In 1844, Joseph argues for an alternative reading of the
Hebrew Genesis text that supports his view of plural Gods:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I once asked a learned Jew once–if the Heb[rew] language compels
us to render all words in heam[/-im] in the plural–why not render the first
plural–he replied it would ruin the Bible–he acknowledged I was right. I came
here to investigate these things precisely as I believe it–hear & judge for
yourself–& if you go away satisfied–well & good–in the very beginning
there is a plurality of Gods–beyond the power of refutation–it is a great
subject I am dwelling on–the word Eloiheam (sic) ought to be in the plural all
the way thro[ugh]–Gods.” (Thomas Bullock Report, Ehat & Cook, ed., <i>The
Words of Joseph Smith</i>, p. 379)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Obviously Joseph was considering
polytheism at least as early as 1839, and perhaps earlier in connection with
his Hebrew studies. An interaction with a nameless, learned Jew served to
confirm his ideas. This man was almost certainly Alexander Neibauer. Possibly
the first Jewish convert to Mormonism in 1837, he was a well-educated man, only
three years the prophet’s junior. He attended rabbinical school in Poland, and
received a degree in dentistry from the University of Berlin. He was also
fluent in seven languages, and apparently an avid student of Kabbalah. These
items earned him a private friendship with Joseph upon their meeting in Nauvoo
that lasted until the the prophet’s death.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Within days of his arrival in April
1841, “Joseph Smith would again begin to study Hebrew under Neibauer. Along
with his studies in Hebrew, Joseph would also study Greek, Latin, and German.
Under Neibauer’s direction, Joseph would learn to read the four languages with
a certain degree of competence” (Widmer, <i>Mormonism and the Nature of
God</i>, p. 81-82). Both the prophet and his enigmatic tutor notate their
various language sessions from 1841-1844 at odd intervals in their private
journals (<a href="http://www.neibaur.org/journals/alex.html"><i>Neibaur
Journal</i>, 1841-42, LDS archives</a>; Faulring, ed., <i>An American
Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith</i>, pp. 460, 481,
487, etc.). Considering from their accounts that Neibauer was an almost
constant companion to the prophet in 1844, it appears probable that Neibauer
was the man to whom Joseph referred with regards to his questions about the
syntax of <i>Elohim</i>.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Certainly Neibauer would have been
cognizant of Joseph’s violent re-interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and probably
reacted accordingly as Joseph implied. But while the prophet was often eclectic,
he always held his own views on scripture in higher esteem than that of its
original authors; as Louis Zucker once said, “He used the Hebrew as he chose,
as an artist, inside his frame of reference, in accordance with his taste,
according to the effect he wanted to produce, as a foundation for theological
innovations” (Zucker, “Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew," <i>Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought</i> 3:53). Might Alexander Neibauer have had
further impact on the prophet’s preferential exegesis though? Lance S. Owens
explains the man’s relevance in this regard:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an
extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and
convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written
works. This man, Alexander Neibaur [sic], would soon become the prophet's
friend and companion.” (Owens, “<a href="http://gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm">Joseph
Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection</a>,” as originally published
in <i>Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought</i>, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.
117-194)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Alexander Neibauer disclosed his loyalty
to the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition in two minor articles on resurrection
which were published in the <i>Times and Seasons</i> in 1843 under
the heading, “The Jews” (Taylor, ed., <i>Times and Seasons</i>,
3:723,724). In both articles, Neibauer quotes extensively from Kabbalistic
authors and especially from varied and precise passages of the foundational
work of Jewish Kabbalah, the <i>Zohar</i>. The Zohar is a compilation of
rabbinical Torah commentaries that is similar to the Midrash, but espouses an
esoteric, mystical approach to scriptural exegesis. It extracts inspired,
hidden meaning from the scriptures on topics ranging from the nature of God to
the origin and structure of the universe, and also addressing the nature of
human souls. In other words, Alexander Neibauer was fixated on the same
hermetic tradition in Jewish Kabbalah as Joseph was experiencing in Masonry and
elsewhere. By introducing the prophet to the Zohar and Kabbalah, doubtless this
man distinguished himself to Joseph as a <i>very</i> <i>learned</i> <i>Jew</i>.<u1:p></u1:p>
More on the Zohar later.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Considering his private relation to
Neibauer from 1841-1843, it should come as no surprise that this same timeframe
happens to coincide with the introduction of the Nauvoo temple endowment and
the translation and publication of the final portions of the Book of Abraham –
both revelations narrating a pre-mortal council, the plurality of Gods, and the
reformatting of the Genesis creation account.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Feb. 19, 1842] Wilford Woodruff: “The Lord is Blessing Joseph
with Power to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through
the urim & Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham or
Adam, which causes our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious
truths opened unto us. … Joseph has had these records in his possession for
several years, but has never presented them before the world in the english
language untill now. But he is now about to publish it to the world.” (“<i>Wilford
Woodruff Journal</i>”, Feb. 19, 1842, sic all)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Mar. 1-4, 1842] Publication of Abraham 1:1-2:18 and explanation
of Facsimile 1.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Mar. 8, 1842] Joseph Smith: “Commenced Translating from the Book
of Abraham, for the 10 No of the Times and Seasons – and was engaged at his
office day & Evening.” (Jessee, <i>Papers of Joseph Smith</i>, Vol. 2,
p. 367)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Mar. 9, 1842] Joseph Smith: “Examining copy for the Times &
Seasons presented by [John] Taylor & [John C.] Bennett … in the afternoon
continued the Translation of the Book of Abraham … & continued translating
& revising, & Reading letters in the evening.” (<i>Ibid.</i>, Vol. 2,
p. 367)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Mar. 15-19, 1842] Publication of Abraham 2:19-5:21 and
explanation of Facsimile 2.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[May 16-20, 1842] Publication of Facsimile 3 and explanation.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">[Feb. 1, 1843] John Taylor: “We have given this timely notice that
our friends may prepare themselves. We would further state that we had the
promise of Br. Joseph, to furnish us with further extracts from the Book of
Abraham.” (<i>Times & Seasons</i> 4/6: 95, Feb. 1, 1843)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">With the publication of the final
chapters of the Book of Abraham, Joseph fully relocated Mormon theology into
polytheistic realms. The book is an excellent miniature of Mormonism’s progressive
doctrinal revisionism. Once again, it begins with a jealous, omnipotent Lord
God (Abr. 1,2) who transitions into a sovereign, finite being without the
capacity to create the human soul (Abr. 3), and finally dissolves into an
impersonal council of co-equal creator Gods (Abr. 4,5). As stated in this
article’s thesis and portrayed in the timeline, the Book of Abraham’s
production also directly parallels the chronological development of Joseph’s
public views on God. That being the case, it is unfortunate that Joseph never
lived to see the promise fulfilled of “further extracts from the Book of
Abraham,” because his last public remarks on the nature of God were by far his
most striking. Imagine what further writings from Abraham may have been unfolded! </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">On April 7, 1844, Joseph unloaded all of
his ammo. Masonry and the temple endowment, his Hebrew studies and the Book of
Abraham, the hermetic hermeneutic of Biblical passages – he coalesced these
disparate elements into a brilliant but radical reinterpretation of the divine
cosmogony. He assigned four scribes to record the sermon, admitting his view of
the gravity of its content. He preached the King Follett discourse, excerpted
here:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“God Himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a Man like unto
one of yourselves—that is the great secret! … Here then is eternal life—to know
the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods
in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all
Gods have done—by going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small
degree to another, from grace to grace, until the resurrection of the dead,
from exaltation to exaltation—till you are able to sit in everlasting burnings
and everlasting power and glory as those who have gone before, sit enthroned. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">What did Jesus Christ do? ‘Why I do the same things that I saw my
Father do when worlds came rolling into existence.’ ‘Saw the Father do what?’
‘I saw the Father work out His kingdom with fear and trembling and I am doing
the same, too. When I get my kingdom, I will give it to the Father and it will
add to and exalt His glory. He will take a higher exaltation and I will take
His place and I am also exalted, so that He obtains kingdom rolling upon
kingdom.’ So that Jesus treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then
inherits what God did before. …</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything
that is not contained in the Bible… I will go to the old Bible and turn
commentator today. I will go to the very first Hebrew word—BERESHITH—in the
Bible and make a comment on the first sentence of the history of creation: ‘In
the beginning…’ I want to analyze the word BERESHITH. BE—in, by, through, and
everything else; next, ROSH—the head; ITH. Where did it come from? When the
inspired man wrote it, he did not put the first part—the BE—there; but a man—a
Jew without any authority—put it there. He thought it too bad to begin to talk
about the head of any man. It read in the first: ‘The Head One of the Gods
brought forth the Gods.’ This is the true meaning of the words. ROSHITH [BARA
ELOHIM] signifies [the Head] to bring forth the Elohim. If you do not believe
it you do not believe the learned man of God. No learned man can tell you any
more than what I have told you. Thus, the Head God brought forth the Head Gods
in the grand, head council.” (Larson, “<a href="https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2LarsonKingFollett-788e0c92-f320-42a3-bccc-7bf232ab8432.pdf">The
King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text</a>,” <i>BYU
Studies </i>18, No. 2, pp. 7-9, EMPHASIS his)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Van Hale, an LDS scholar, analyzed the
discourse and highlights four key concepts which have had a lasting impact on
Mormon doctrine: namely, men are eternal and can therefore become Gods, there
exists a pantheon of Gods, these Gods exist one above another innumerably, and
God was once as man now is (Hale, “<a href="https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2HaleDoctrinal-9e7650a7-6b63-47cf-a4ca-bed3f221ca27.pdf">The
Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse</a>," <i>Brigham Young
University Studies</i> 18 : 213). The latter two points were doubly
reinforced in his succeeding “Sermon in the Grove,” in which he insisted once
again that his teachings were self-consistent and uniform with scriptures both
ancient and modern. At the root of Joseph’s extrapolations in both of these
discourses is his use of Hebrew in Genesis 1:1, or misuse of Hebrew as one may
argue. Lance Owens makes the point:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“By any literate interpretation of Hebrew, this is an impossible
reading. Joseph takes Elohim, the subject of the clause, and turns it into the
object, the thing which received the action of creation. Bereshith (‘in the
beginning’) is reinterpreted to become Roshith, the ‘head’ or ‘Head Father of
the Gods,’ who is the subject-actor creating Elohim. And Elohim he interprets
not as God, but as ‘the Gods.’” (Owens, “Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult
Connection,” as originally published in <i>Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought</i>, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 117-194)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Despite his extra-curricular studies,
Joseph is abusing the Hebrew text here. But his cut against convention is
intentional. That being the case, does Joseph mean something more when he says
“I will go to the <i>old Bible</i> and turn commentator today"?
In Kabbalistic traditions, the Zohar contains the oldest traditions hidden in
the biblical text, and is therefore often referred to as “<i>the old Bible</i>.”
Joseph is already discussing hermetic concepts here, but is he really deriving
his interpretation from a medieval Jewish Gnostic text? Yes, as it turns out,
he probably is. The Zohar begins with commentary on Bereshith bara Elohim:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“It is written: And the intelligent shall shine like the
brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness like the
stars for ever and ever. There was indeed a ‘brightness' [Zohar]. The Most
Mysterious struck its void, and caused this point to shine.
This ‘beginning' [Reshith] then extended, and made for itself a palace for
its honour and glory … Thus by means of this ‘beginning' [Reshith] the
Mysterious Unknown made this palace. This palace is called Elohim, and this
doctrine is contained in the words, "By means of a beginning [Reshith,
it,] created Elohim.” (<i>Zohar</i> I:15a)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In other words, this evidently
longstanding esoteric tradition also interpreted the first phrase in
Genesis as signifying a nameless, Mysterious “Beginning” organized the
Gods rather than God/Gods organizing the heavens and earth. The Zohar suggests
the reversal of subject with object, as does Joseph Smith here. Can the
consequences of this connection be overestimated? In his last sermon, he
likewise calls on Genesis 1:26 to support his belief in a plurality Gods – the
same scripture cited by the Zohar in support of the very same principle (Zohar
I:23b). Is it not incredible that the prophet’s entire premise for his late
theological innovations are precipitated by a medieval Jewish Gnostic book to
which he was introduced shortly beforehand? Joseph is here orchestrating a
combination of aberrant doctrines that consummate in something altogether
different from anything that came in his revelations before: God is finite.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Like all the righteous before him, God
the Father started from a lower, mortal state and progressed to the station of
a God – “going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small degree
to another, from grace to grace.” No longer is the Lord God an eternally
consistent, self-sustained being whose power and righteousness are native to
his personality. Although he was greater than the assembled intelligences yet
he was elected to the prominent position of God: “the heads of the Gods
appointed one God for us.” In like manner, God chose his own cabinet of divine
delegates in the pattern of all Gods before him. In another eon, God the Father
served the same role as Jesus under the direction of another Father God, and so
on for generations before them. According to Joseph, this order of priestly
patriarchs has been in process forever: “Where was there ever a son without a
father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The prophet’s newly formulated cosmogony
casts God the Father as the most recent in a long line of designated deities,
each responsible for the salvation of their own kindred kingdoms. In this
respect, it may be accurately observed that Joseph is here exploring Gnostic
territory beyond polytheism even; he invented his own familial brand of
Henotheism. Henotheism itself is the belief in territorial deities, each
reigning over his/her own jurisdiction. Joseph’s contribution is the patriarch
angle, with an emphasis on the existence of many kingdoms with different Gods
at the helm of each, all of them fathers and sons progressing for eternity. So,
Joseph’s final theological addendum was that of patriarchal Henotheism.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In conclusion, I believe Joseph Smith,
Jr. was in many ways a very brilliant man. Nevertheless, he was a product of
his place and time, the same as all other men. His teachings are similarly
stamped by the cultural context and prejudices native to various worldviews of
the period. Joseph was instilled with passion for exposing hidden things to the
masses, an ambition that was nurtured in his magic-fraught youth. The Victorian
religious influence compounded with economic pressures to create a need for
God’s intercession in his life, amongst other factors. Finally, the tremendous
family pressure of prophetic expectation bore heavily on the young prophet’s
heart and mind. Eventually he made the endeavor, and to spectacular effect!
Fallible as his career was, it is still earmarked by exceptional charisma,
ambition, and imagination. Joseph sought to unify the heavens and the earth in
a way that few educated ministers were willing to consider. Perhaps most
impressive was his ability to learn and adapt his theology to the perceived
truths of his day, as he interpreted them.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Joseph Smith began his career with
something like a Modalist’s view of God – any divine intervention through any
role or representation was ultimately a manifestation of <i>the</i> Deity.
This definition of God in very absolute terms was probably the prophet’s
primitive interpretation of frontier revivalist rhetoric. But within years he
was attracting converts more traditionally trained in theology. Their influence
helped conventionalize his beliefs away from the heretical for a time, in the general
direction of Binitarianism – a very common precept among the upstart <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism#Groups_arising_during_the_Second_Great_Awakening">Restorationist
movements</a> of the time. But Joseph’s ambition would be reawakened again
and again by hermetic inspirations. As they presented themselves, he
capitalized on opportunities to reveal hidden meaning from ancient characters,
and innovate on protestant Christianity’s premise. His talent for telling tales
and re-interpreting scripture allowed him to construct these innovations into a
Judeo-Christian context. All of these cultural influences ultimately led Joseph
to a belief in multiple Gods and beyond. To the discerning eye, his fourteen
year career offered a single constant relative to the Mormon concept of God
– <i>change</i>. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
How then can we receive Joseph as a true prophet of God, if we judge his
doctrine according to his own revelations? He claimed ownership of divinely
validated truth, and yet there is clear conflict and evolution in his
teachings. Would Joseph himself have been satisfied if he received multiple
conflicting answers the morning he stepped into the sacred grove as a young boy
in pursuit of truth? I think not. Without an institutional culture to call his
own, he clearly rejected the confusion and discord he saw in the religious
authorities of his surroundings. Why should we not do the same? I believe those
seeking God's transcendent gospel in Mormonism will inevitably be
disappointed that the Lord failed to communicate the end from the beginning to
his “choice seer." Lest we forget, the Mormon prophet himself reminds
us of his ultimate failing:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty
the character of God.” – Joseph Smith, Jr. (<i>Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith</i>, p 345)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p>Joseph
Smith evidently did not.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment-->ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-23962453472780992902012-06-01T21:11:00.002-07:002015-01-05T15:11:50.460-08:00Darwinian Deity: The Evolution of the Mormon Concept of God – Part II –<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Continued from <a href="http://theantianti.blogspot.com/2012/05/0-false-18-pt-18-pt-0-0-false-false.html">Part
I</a>...</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
In my last post, I examined the doctrine of the trinity in the foundational
religious text of Mormonism, The Book of Mormon. It's most definitive and
singular contribution to Christian doctrine is its emphasis on Jesus Christ as
Most High God, rather than a separate, subordinate deity per the early New
Testament tradition. If a label is necessary, its closest fit is Modalism.
Regardless of one's view of its authorship, the Book of Mormon inherently
encapsulates Joseph's earliest views of God in 1828-1829 and is representative
of the earliest additions to the theological canon by the Latter-day Saints as
a body. Christian modalism may have been Mormonism's first touchstone,
but it eventually developed well beyond that. This stance finds
support in light of adjacent early revelations in the LDS restoration movement,
which in turn led to more new and radical doctrinal developments.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Joseph Smith was an “eclectic sponge," constantly incorporating new
ideas from his studies and his environment into his revelatory theology. For
example, Sidney Rigdon was an early convert to Mormonism who quickly came
to prominence as Joseph's counselor. His traditional clerical training as a
Baptist/Campbellite minister apparently influenced Joseph enough that by 1834,
the brethren were preaching doctrine better defined as Binitarianism, or the
belief of two individuals in the Godhead. Consider the “Of Faith” lectures
presented in Kirtland, Ohio. They were a series of theological lectures
prepared by Sidney Rigdon and heavily supervised by Joseph Smith for delivery
to the “School of the Prophets” in 1834-1835. They were selected by the
Literary Firm (publishing subsidiary to the United Firm) for canonization in
the 1835 D&C, and were published in every subsequent edition until their
removal in 1921. A relevant segment from Lecture Fifth:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power:
possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the
Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being
in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness,
and in his image;– he is also the express image and likeness of the personage
of the Father: possessing all the fullness of the Father, or, the same fullness
with the Fathe[r];being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the
foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who
should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh … </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
[The Son] possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy
Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one,
or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and
supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that
were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The
Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and
fullness: Filling all in all – the Son being filled with the fullness of the
Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the
Father – possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at
the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father – a
Mediator for man – being filled with the fullness of the Mind of the Father, or,
in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all
who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his
commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the
heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind,
being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of
him who fills all in all: being filled with the fullness of his glory, and
become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. … </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Q. What is the Father? A. He is a personage of glory and of power. … Q. What is
the Son? A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle… Q. Why was he called the
Son? A. Because of the flesh. … Q. What is the mind? A. The Holy Spirit.” (Jessee, The
Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations: Vol. 2, Published
Revelations, p 363-367; or alternatively <a href="http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835#61">here</a>/ff)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
These canonized lectures differentiate themselves from Nephite theology in that
they systematically distinguish the identity of the Father from the Son. They
are no longer perfectly identical, rather they appear to be unique as to
individual personhood. Still, they are so alike that the major differentiation
between them is the characteristic of tabernacle, or flesh. In the Book of
Mormon, The Father is embodied in flesh because Christ is the Father. As seen
in the above lecture, their separation redefines the Father as being a
“personage of spirit, glory, and power: possessing all perfection and
fullness.” In fact, it is specified that Jesus “is called the Son because
of the flesh.” The corporeality of Jesus is emphasized as a distinguishing
factor, and not the essence of his being “the express image and likeness of the
personage of the Father.” How then can the Son be the express image and
likeness of the Father? </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
These terms were not interpreted then as they are by Mormons now. Their meaning
is expressed succinctly in the document– disciples who keep the commandments
and become joint heirs with Christ possess “the same mind, being transformed
into the same image or likeness, even the express
image of him who fills all in all, … even as the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost are one.” So while it is likely that the LDS conception of the
Father at this time entitled him to a similar spirit body like Jesus’ in Ether,
there is no evidence that he was understood as an anthropomorphic being in the
traditional sense.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Image was not always equated to “physical likeness” as members prefer to read
it now; rather, it was also understood to be a “divine likeness.” In addition,
the Holy Spirit is described not as a personage at all, but as the “mind,”
“will,” “wisdom,” and “glory” of God. Joseph and the Saints evidently believed
“there are TWO personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and
supreme power over all things,” rather than three. Apparently, the scripture in
1 Nephi 11:11 about Nephi's encounter with the “Spirit of the Lord"
was understood in a literal sense, as in the spirit-personage of the Lord God,
rather than today’s favored interpretation as the Holy Ghost.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Observant students of the early revelations will notice a steep drop-off in the
usage of “one God,” “these three are one,” or “the Father and I are one” as
descriptors of the relationship between members of the Godhead after 1833
(D&C 93 ≈ May 1833). The Lectures on Faith in 1834 are an exception,
and even so, they offer a special definition for the term: “these three are
one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing
and supreme power over all things.” The only other section to mention the term
is in a letter from Joseph written from Liberty Jail in 1839 (D&C 121:28),
and it reflects the late development of LDS Henotheism. In fact, scholars
have noticed “that after May of 1833, Joseph never again referred to Jesus
as the Father in any of his writings" (Kirkland, "Jehovah as the
Father," p 37; or <a href="https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/044-36-44.pdf">here</a>).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Fortunately for modern Mormons, much of the vernacular in Joseph's revelations
is pliable enough to meet the needs of Social Trinitarianism, but it begs the
question: If the Lectures on Faith were canonized as scripture, why have
they been removed from all editions of the Doctrine and Covenants since
1921? Joseph Smith was elected to the Literary Firm in 1832, along with
Cowdery, Rigdon, and Williams. In other words, the leading men of the Church
arranged for the selection included in the primary edition as a representation
of LDS common belief, with the theological lectures comprising the titular
“Doctrine” of the church per the Literary Firm’s Preface to the first edition:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[This volume] contains in short, the leading items of the
religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be
found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class
in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine
of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. … There may be an
aversion in the minds of some against receiving anything purporting to be
articles of religious faith, … but if men believe a system, and profess that it
was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they present it, the
better. … We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, our
belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of
this society as a body.” (Doctrine & Covenants 1835 ed., Preface, pp
iii,iv, emphasis mine, scans and transcription <a href="http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/preface-to-the-doctrine-and-covenants-17-february-1835#1">here</a>)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
So despite later contentions to the contrary (bless Joseph Fielding Smith), the
Lectures on Faith were canonized as LDS theology and accepted unanimously
before a general conference of the Church in Kirtland on August 17, 1835 as
“the doctrine and covenants of their faith” (Ibid., p 257) – as scripture. The
real reason for their removal is because section 130 was added in the previous
edition (1876) and a conflict was observed. Most Latter-day Saints are aware,
section 130 is a recording of an 1843 affirmation that the Father has flesh and
bone, amongst other musings. Consider that the Prophet’s first known statement
to that effect was given in Nauvoo in 1841: “That which is without body or
parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh
and bones” (Ehat & Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, p 60).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Step back one year earlier, and the concept of an embodied Father was foreign
to Elder Erastus Snow, who denied the accusation that the Saints taught such a
doctrine in 1840: “What Mormon, understanding our doctrines, ever said that God
the Father had flesh and bones?” Snow quoted Lecture Fifth about the Father
being a spirit and asked, “Does it necessarily follow that because God is a
spirit, possessing universal knowledge, that spirit has no form,
shape, or bodily appearance as you would have it?” (Erastus Snow, “E. Snow’s
reply to the Self-Styled Philanthropist, of Chester County”, p
6; emphasis in original). His position was that the Father has
a “spirit body" that is not corporeal in nature. Again, prominent LDS
historian Richard Bushman observes, “By 1841 [Joseph] had moved from a
traditional Christian belief in God as pure spirit to a belief in his
corporeality” (Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p 420).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Because the <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.15-20?lang=eng">official account</a> of
Joseph's first vision encourages his awareness of distinct Father and Son
personalities in 1820, and is sometimes cited as evidence of Joseph's early
knowledge of the corporeality of God, I will submit every substantial first
vision account for consideration in this study. Only two of Joseph’s first-hand
accounts place God the Father there explicitly, and neither demonstrates that
the Father has a physical body, only that he appeared to have a human form (as
in Snow’s logic above). The specific variations in these late accounts taken in
concert with the eventual changes to the 1837 Book of Mormon bearing on the
same subject (1 Nephi 11:18,21,32; 1 Nephi 13:40), as also considering new
doctrines being introduced in subsequent teachings and publications (<a href="http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/PDF/GROVE.pdf">Sermon in the Groves</a>,
the <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng">Book of
Abraham</a>, etc.), seem to contribute a fatal stroke to the notion of
revelatory consistency, or prophetic honesty if one prefers.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
The earliest extant account, written some 11-12 years after the occasion as
part of Joseph's 1832 history, was never published in Joseph’s lifetime or even
in the 19th century. Incidentally, it is the only account we have in the
prophet’s own handwriting! Many have tried to downplay the significance of the
1832 history, but we cannot honestly ignore its effect upon our view of
Joseph’s “marvilous experience.” It speaks for itself:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I
could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while
in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a
piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from
above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord
opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying
Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way walk in my statutes and
keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world
that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world
lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned aside
from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their
lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the
inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to their ungodliness and to
bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and
Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud
clothed in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many
days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find
none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things
in my heart.” (Jessee, The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: Vol. 1, Joseph
Smith Histories, 1832-1844, p 12,13, sic all)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
This account will be unique to unfamiliar LDS because there is no mention of
church restoration, no mention of Joseph’s special calling, and most
conspicuously, no mention of God the Father’s appearance. Having subscribed to
the tenets of modalism, Joseph is suspiciously silent about the separate
appearance of the Father with the Son, if he was present as the later accounts
suggest. Joseph’s earliest report extolls a personal, salvation-focused
experience, not at all foreign to the fervor of upstate New York’s “Burned-Over
district.” Many people who reported similar theophanies told of
visitations by angels, by the Savior, and occasionally by both the Father and
Son. But Joseph only reports seeing the Lord, who identifies himself as “the
Lord of Glory [who] was crucifyed for the world.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
All of this lending Joseph the suspension of disbelief and assuming that he
actually had some kind of visionary experience, as he consistently claimed. I
personally believe we should consider it a possibility and investigate
accordingly. Is it not strange though that despite his claim that “none would
believe the hevnly vision,” there is no available visionary
account reported before 1823, friendly or hostile, family or not? 1823 was
purportedly the year Joseph was first visited by Moroni/Nephi.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
For instance, in 1838 Joseph extrapolated that sharing his (by this
point) “1820" vision of the Father and Son “excited a great deal of
prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great
persecution, which continued to increase” (Roberts, History of the Church,
Vol. 1, p 7). Yet there is no corroborative testimony to that effect at all.
None whatsoever. Beginning in 1823, many accounts of Joseph having dreams,
visions, and necromancies are reported by family and neighbors on both sides of
the fence, but none report a visitation by the Lord.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Joseph certainly was actually persecuted for his earliest visionary
claims, but those contemporary reports revolve solely around the dream
visitation of an angel who promised him a certain set of valuable Gold Plates.
And by their own account, these aggressors were not incensed at Joseph’s initial
religious claims; they were upset that Joseph did not honor their 1825
treasure-digging contract that promised equal shares for all, should spoils be
found. It was not until 1830 that we have evidence for a “Christian experience”
that predates the treasure angel’s 1823 visit. Apologists claim that the June
1830 revelation references Joseph’s first vision:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“For, after that it truly was manifested unto this first
Elder [Joseph Smith] that he had Received a remission of his sins he was
entangled again in the vanities of the world but after truly Repenting God
ministered unto him by an Holy Angel whose countenance was as Lightning &
whose garments were pure & white above all whiteness & gave unto him
Commandments which insp[i]red him from on high & gave unto him power by the
means of which was before prepared that he should translate a Book…”
(Jessee, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations: Vol. 1,
Manuscript Revelation Books, p 60; cf. D&C 20:5-8)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
It certainly hints at some kind of atoning manifestation, but makes no mention
of visitation by angelic personages. Although the Palmyra “Reflector” reported
Mormon missionaries teaching in 1830 that Smith had seen God
“frequently and personally” (The Reflector, Vol. 2, no. 13, 14 Feb 1831), this is
more likely a mistaken reference to the annual visits of Cumorah's angel. It is
also possible they inferred this from one of Joseph's early revelations (such
as D&C 6:37). This seems particularly likely considering Orson Pratt’s 1840
pamphlet “An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions…” is the first
published account of the prophet’s premiere theophany that lines up with the
official story as we know it today. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Joseph did occasionally regale his guests with the tale of his religious quest
experienced between the ages of 14 and 16, but nobody in the 1830s seemed to be
aware that it was anything more than an angelic visitation. Joseph himself
appears to go back and forth about it. Despite the 1832 history, Joseph records
an account given to “Joshua, the Jewish Minister” in his 9 November 1835 diary:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I called on the Lord for the first time in the place above
stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray My tongue seemed
to be swoolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter. I heard a noise behind me
like some one walking towards me: I strove again to pray, but could not; the
noise of walking seemed to draw nearer; I sprang upon my feet and looked round,
but saw no person, or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of
walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on
the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which
presently rested down upon me, and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage
appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and
yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he
said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus
Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14
years old when I received this first communication. When I was about 17 years I
had another vision of angels; in the night season, after I had retired to
bed.” (Jessee, The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: Vol. 1, Joseph
Smith Histories, 1832-1844, p 116)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
This recording is clearly in reference to the first vision, and is
differentiated from the latter angelic vision at 17. Yet Joseph fails to
identify the two personages, except perhaps in the summary statement, “I saw
many angels in this vision.” This makes sense considering the personage’s
testimony of Jesus’ forgiveness is spoken in the third-person. The strongest
evidence for the propriety of this interpretation is found in his subsequent
diary entry dated 14 November 1835, only five days later:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“A gentleman called this afternoon, by the name of Erastus Holmes
of Newbury Clemon [Clermont] Co. Ohio, to make inquiry about the establishment
of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and to be instructed more perfectly in
the doctrine & principles of it. He (Smith) commenced and gave him a brief
relation of his experience while in his youthful days, say from the age of six
years up to the time he received the first visitation of angels which
was when he was about 14 years old. He also gave him an account of the
revelations he afterward received concerning the coming forth of the Book of
Mormon.” (Jessee, The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: Vol. 1, Joseph Smith
Histories, 1832-1844, p 124; emphasis mine)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Consider for a moment that the first vision account related to “Joshua, the
Jewish Minister” was omitted from the official History of the Church, but this
latter diary entry was included as follows:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“This afternoon, Erastus Holmes, of Newbury, Ohio, called on me to
inquire about the establishment of the Church, and to be instructed in doctrine
more perfectly. I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my
juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received my first
vision, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations
that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon.”
(Roberts, History of the Church, Vol. 2, p 312; emphasis mine)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
It bothers me they changed it. Evidently, the “Priesthood Correlation” engine
operating in the church today inherits a long tradition of revisionist
historical treatment, not beginning with B.H. Robert’s official histories.
Anyway, one of the prophet’s earliest and closest associate in those years also
published an account of Joseph’s first encounter with the divine in the LDS Messenger
and Advocate, Feb. 1835, 1:41-43,65-67. Oliver Cowdery admits that his “history
would necessarily embrace the life and character of our esteemed friend and
brother, J. Smith jr.,” “a more particular or minute history of the rise and
progress of the church” and that he will submit “such facts as are within my
knowledge.” </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Interestingly, he begins Joseph’s account by an exposition of the religious
fervor in Palmyra during “the 15th year of his life,” but in the follow-up
issue apologizes for the error: “You will recollect that I mentioned the time
of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the
15th year of our brother J. Smith jr’s age – that was an error in the type
– it should have been in the 17th.” Perhaps Oliver recognized the anachronism
of placing the local religious fervor prior to Alvin’s death in 1823, as have
many contemporary critics. In any case, in the same issue he then recounts
Joseph’s endeavor:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Our brother was urged forward and strengthened in the determination
to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion. –
And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued,
he continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full
manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him the all important
information if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was
accepted of him. … On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous
to retiring to rest, our brother’s mind was unusually wrought up on the subject
which had so long agitated his mind – his heart was drawn out in fervent
prayer, and his whole soul was so lost to every thing of a temporal nature,
that earth, to him, had lost its charms, and all he desired was to be prepared
in heart to commune with some kind messenger who could communicate to him the
desired information of his acceptance with God.” (Jessee, The Joseph Smith
Papers, Histories: Vol. 1, Joseph Smith Histories, 1832-1844, p 52-57)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Oliver then proceeds to tell the familiar story of the Lord’s messenger
appearing to him and calling him to discover an ancient record hidden in the
earth nearby. The Angel’s utterances here are a strange confounding of the 1838
Moroni account and the twin personages’ pronouncements on the state of
Christendom found in the same history: </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are
despised, has God chosen; yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things which are that no flesh should glory in his presence. Therefore, says,
the Lord, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, and the
understanding of their prudent shall be hid; for according to his covenant
which he made with his ancient saints, his people, the house of Israel must
come to a knowledge of the gospel, and own that Messiah whom their fathers
rejected, and with them the fullness of the Gentiles be gathered in, to rejoice
in one fold under one Shepherd. … He has therefore chosen you as an instrument
in his hand to bring to pass a marvelous work and wonder. Wherever the sound
shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be
proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God
with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far
from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands
it is carried. Therefore, Marvle not if your name is made a derission, and had
as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift
of God, to the knowledge of the people.” (Ibid., p 58,59)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
How are faithful Latter-day Saints to interpret these things? Oliver was the
second Elder, an apostle, and at the time of this publication, the Assistant
President of the Church. I doubt if there was anybody in a better position to
know Joseph’s story more intimately than Oliver Cowdery. It would be
convenient to dismiss Oliver’s published account as an accidental conflation,
but that doesn’t quite hold up. Joseph’s purpose in prayer on September 21,
1823 is stated to have been for “the all important information if a
Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.” </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
It is unfathomable, to me at least, that Joseph could be preoccupied with this
query, as well to wonder “of the certainty and reality of
pure and holy religion,” if he had indeed experienced the first vision
according to the 1838 account. It seems more than a possibility to me that
Joseph’s primordial visionary experiences have their origins in a single
angelic vision had in a waking dream circa September 1823. In considering
this problem, one might expect his immediate family's awareness given their
anxious participation in the Nephite angel's communications, but none of them
corroborates the official first vision account prior to its publication in
Nauvoo's Times and Seasons in 1842. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Frankly, the transformation of an angelic salvation experience into a visit by
the Lord, into a visit by many angels, into a visit by the
Father and Son and many angels exactly reflects the
doctrinal developments in Joseph's Smith's evolving theological worldview. His
revelations and discourse, in addition to his edits of the 1837 Book of Mormon,
show the same redaction and expansion. It is a similar kind of development the
Mormon concept of Priesthood underwent (see Gregory Prince's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Power-High-Development-Mormon-Priesthood/dp/156085071X">Power
From On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood</a>), only much less linear. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Is it possible that he simply left out certain details on different occasions?
In view of the aforementioned parallels, it is unlikely these things are mere
coincidence. On the other hand, the likelihood that he expanded the origins of
his calling to counter tremendous opposition and apostasy in the 1837-9 fallout
is bolstered by the fact that most of his closest adherents understood the
first vision primarily as an angelic ministration even decades after his
death. A sample:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and
great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth
of heaven … but He did send his angel to this same obscure person,
Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and
informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for
they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of
the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform.” – Brigham Young, 1855
(Various ed., Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p 171)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“[Joseph Smith read James 1:5] and taking this literally, he went
humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer,
and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of
the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all
the denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were
all wrong, - they had all gone astray, transgressed the laws, changed the
ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant.” ~ “[Joseph] sought the Lord by
day and by night, and was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When
this personage appeared to him, one of his first inquiries was, ‘Which of the
denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?’ He was told they
had all gone astray … he was, consequently, directed not to join any of them.”
– George A. Smith, 1863; 1869 (Ibid., Vol. 12, p 334; Vol. 13, p 78)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“None of [the sects] was right, just as it was when the
Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he
might join it. The answer was that none of them are right.” – John Taylor,
1879 (Ibid., Vol. 20, p 167)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees
called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While
engaged in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it
rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to
his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then
appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him
that none of the sects were right…” – William Smith, 1883 (Vogel, Early
Mormon Documents, Vol. 1, pp. 495,496; from Smith, “William Smith On
Mormonism”, p. 5)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Of course, some of the brethren were definitely aware of the Father and Son
story (for example, <a href="http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/ask-the-apologist-did-early-lds-leaders-misunderstand-the-first-vision">here</a>).
Strangely, the same individuals refer to the Father and Son incident more vaguely,
while the accounts of an “holy angel” fit into the first vision context
exactly. When speaking of Jesus and the Father, did these men mean a reference
to the 1832 revelation (D&C 76:20,22,23)? Perhaps in a few cases, but
probably not in most. As stated earlier, Orson’s version and subsequent
accounts (like the <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Jr._Interview_with_David_Nye_White_(29_August_1843)">Pittsburgh Weekly
Gazette</a> and <a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter">The Wentworth
Letter</a>) seem to follow the 1838 manuscript history quite closely, which
first saw publication in April 1842 (Orson’s account can be found in
Jessee, The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: Vol. 1, Joseph Smith
Histories, 1832-1844, pp. 520/ff (appendix); or alternatively, <a href="http://olivercowdery.com/texts/Prat1840.htm">here</a>).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
It will surprise most CES students to learn that it was not until plural
marriage ended in the early 20th century that Joseph F. Smith promoted the
traditional First Vision story as a defining element of Mormonism (it was
largely through his instrumentality that the 1838 history was canonized in
1880). Nevertheless, a late 19th century Salt Lake Mormon periodical
published an interesting reproduction of the official account:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all
description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling
me by name, and said (pointing to the other), This is my Beloved Son, hear him.
… The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised
that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future
time. Joseph continues: ‘Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which
I cannot write at this time.’” (The Historical Record, Vol. VII, p 355, 356; or
alternatively, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA14&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false">here</a>) </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
The Saints were evidently well aware of the 1838 record, but insisted upon
interpreting the “personages” as representative messengers of some kind
(perhaps like the Holy Ghost in Moses 5:9). Significantly, Joseph
himself never names the two angelic personages in any of
his accounts, and it is only in the later accounts that he strongly implies
their relationship and identities. Certainly the addition of a second member
reflects the doctrinal evolution Joseph was experiencing midway through his
ministry; and the late implication of their identities in the 1840’s
aggrandized his calling and authority.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Obviously, nobody can say for sure who or how many appeared to Joseph during
his teenage visionary crusades – there were no other eye
witnesses. Personally, I do not believe that the many variations in
Joseph’s accounts are the product of confused repetition on the part of his
hearers. We have too many first-hand narratives to counter that position.
Additionally there are too many other parallels (consonant development through
BoM, JST, D&C, Lectures on Faith, etc.) that suggest they were
conscious adaptations for harmonization. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Although people have the right to believe about it as they please, it is
not purely a matter of faith. The available evidence strongly suggests that the
development in Joseph’s conception of God was erratically dynamic
rather than strictly convergent, as one might expect of transcendent revelation.
Much has been done to disguise that fact, not the least of which being the
efforts of well-meaning members to coalesce Mormon history (as was my
experience). This can be brutally frustrating because “the notion that LDS
doctrines have merely progressed in a linear and progressive fashion ... is an
appealing, but difficult, idea to corroborate" (Harrell, This is My
Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, p x).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Continued in <a href="http://theantianti.blogspot.com/2012/10/darwinian-deity-evolution-of-mormon_4277.html">Part
III</a>...</span></div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment-->ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-13423757253349944142012-05-16T06:28:00.003-07:002015-01-05T15:23:18.497-08:00Darwinian Deity: The Evolution of the Mormon Concept of God – Part I –<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty
the character of God.” (Smith, <i>Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith</i>, p
345)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The prophet preached these words mere
months before his martyrdom – part of what is now known as the King Follett
Discourse (transcript available <a href="https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2LarsonKingFollett-788e0c92-f320-42a3-bccc-7bf232ab8432.pdf">here</a>).
This sermon epitomizes the trajectory of Joseph’s tenure as Mormonism's
founding prophet and is widely considered the zenith of his revelatory
contribution to Latter-day Saint doctrine. Because it arrived so late in his
fourteen year ministry it also serves as a terrific, two-fold illustration of a
student's struggle to accept Mormonism at face value. On the one hand it
summarizes and affirms for believers the supreme importance of attaining the
proper gospel knowledge required for functional worship. On the opposite, it is
an ironically self-defeating statement to teach knowledge of God as the <i>first</i> and <i>fundamental</i> principle
of the gospel, but moments later expound a new, radically divergent concept of
God's nature – and this so late in his career! No wonder even the
most loyal Saints were troubled by these things, enough to cause a member of
the First Presidency to apostatize!</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Growing up in the Mormon tradition, I
took pride in the testimony that we as an institution possess an exclusively
intimate understanding of God’s person. The authenticity of that information
relied on it being more than mere musing, more than speculation, and more even
than inspired utterance. Mormonism claims direct, dialogic revelation, and
heavenly manifestations to boot. Most will be familiar with the story of the
boy prophet who in 1820 went into a quiet grove in upstate New York seeking
spiritual answers, and in turn witnessed “a pillar of light” pierce the veil of
human ignorance. Revelation was had on the earth once more! This, we are
taught, was the inception of the restoration of many "plain and precious”
truths that were long lost from Christendom, particularly the vanished reality
about who and what kind of being God is.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In 1834, leaders of the fledgling Church
of the Latter-day Saints held a sacerdotal class in Kirtland, Ohio where they
boldly asserted that without the “correct idea of [God’s] character,
perfections, and attributes … the faith of every rational being must be
imperfect and unproductive,” for “without the revelations which he has given to
us, no man by searching could find out God” (1835 ed. D&C, Lecture Third, p
36; or Jessee, <i>The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations:
Vol. 2, Published Revelations</i>, p 346). To members of our faith, Mormonism
is the receptacle of God’s final revelatory dispensation, a time of
consummation in which “God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, …
in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods,
they shall be manifest. All … shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation
of the fulness of times” (D&C 121:26,28,31). Or, in the dogmatic words of
Bruce R. McConkie, “God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown” (McConkie,
“The Lord’s People Receive Revelation,” <i>Ensign</i>, June 1971, <a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/06/the-lords-people-receive-revelation">here</a>).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Despite the definitive nature of these
declarations, Mormonism also claims the right to ongoing revelation; doctrinal
development is to be expected to a certain degree. Using the biblical
vernacular, “[God] will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon
precept,” here a little and there a little, enabling us as children to grow
from grace to grace (D&C 98:12). This type of gospel learning is supposed
to be a progressive education, where fragments of truth are disclosed piece by
piece, slowly contributing to the theological “big picture.” For this reason
many accuse Mormons of having no theology at all, there being no strictly
canonical system by which our revelations are made accountable. Exaggeration or
not, this elasticity has in some ways proved an advantage for LDS advocates;
like nailing Jell-O to a wall, critics have a hard time formulating arguments
that hold any sway with church membership. To its credit, Mormonism’s
“doctrine” is flexible enough to avoid most criticism while accommodating a
modest variety of convictions.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">With that in mind, there is still a certain
consistency that is expected of the canonized revelations. After all, their
source is Jesus, “the Spirit of truth,” who promises the Saints “knowledge of
things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” God solicits
his gospel as ultimate truth, and himself as its impeccable vendor. “Whatsoever
is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from
the beginning.” “I, the Lord, promise the faithful and cannot lie.” (D&C
62:6; 93:24,25). Reconciling the versatility of the restored gospel with the
absoluteness of revealed knowledge became a lynchpin for me in my own pursuit
of solid testimony. I have discovered that this endeavor is an arduous task,
even for the most persistent students of Mormonism.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Having believed these things explicitly
myself, I endeavored for many years to homogenize the teachings of the LDS
standard works into a standardized, compatible whole. Over time I developed
special, interpretive skills that made this easier. These “private interpretations”
allowed me to sidestep very difficult passages </span><span style="background: white; color: #332323; font-family: "Times",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">— </span><span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">such as Isaiah 45:5,21 in view of D&C 132:20 </span><span style="background: white; color: #332323; font-family: "Times",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">—</span><span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"> by limiting the scope of their application and by developing
special definitions for otherwise plain language (apparently a divine practice
as well, per D&C 19:5-12). My instincts are not unique; I am a product of
the modern “correlated” church, which engages in this process regularly. And
frankly, what other choice do the faithful have? The modern Mormon gospel is in
this regard very much the product of our second generation theologians
(Widtsoe, Roberts, Talmage, etc.), who recognized the discrepancies and began
efforts to correlate our doctrine into a consolidated whole.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">It must be conceded that doctrinal
tenets of all world religions experience change over time for a variety of
social, cultural, economic, and political reasons. The Latter-Day Saint
tradition is no different in this respect. But when it comes to our revelations
we are made to expect precision, for “who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised
and have not fulfilled" (D&C 58:31)? And again, "whether by mine
own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).
Remarkably, the vast majority of alterations in Mormon doctrine have their
roots in the brief sixteen year period from 1828 to 1844, in parallel with
Joseph Smith’s incumbency as prophet. Beyond this period, the inspired Mormon
hierarchy shot Joseph's doctrine in almost every imaginable direction before it
was roped in early in the 20<sup>th</sup> century.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">As a case study over the next few posts,
I will briefly show the development of the Mormon concept of Deity, since it
was this problem that first caused me to reconsider the orthodox understanding
of Mormon claims to divine revelation. It appears that our honest efforts to align
the gospel have instigated the retrofitting of current LDS Godhead ontology
(i.e. nature of being) back into our earliest revelations, and with notable
seams. I believe an examination of the earliest concepts will show that our
collective “private interpretation” is demonstrably anachronistic.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Members of the Church needn’t look far
for an illustration: the Book of Mormon can be regarded as the most thorough
representative of Joseph’s earliest theological views – he once called it
"the most correct of any book on Earth" – and is thusly the
most distinguished from modern Mormon doctrines. Today’s students of the book
will encounter a number of curious teachings and esoteric phraseologies that
are more at home in a 19<sup>th</sup> century protestant context than in
today's LDS theology.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Without retroactively reading our
current teachings into the text (looking at you, 1916 First Presidency/Twelve
Statement, <a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng">“The
Father and the Son”</a>), what does Mormon’s book explicitly teach about God
the Father? How does he identify himself therein? In what way is he
differentiated from God the Son? Is the Father an anthropomorphic, or embodied,
God – and if so, how so? Book of Mormon theology is not cut-and-dry, but I will
try to show the best native interpretation in order to avoid eisegesis.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">From beginning to end, the Book of
Mormon venerates a singular, supreme being known variously as Lord Omnipotent,
Lord God Almighty, Most High God, Eternal God, and Eternal Father. Most
importantly, this supreme deity was apparently known to his ancient American
adherents as Jesus Christ, the “Son of God.” In this respect, the title page's
message is abundantly clear and fairly represents the book's contents. A more
straightforward example when the prophet Amulek was asked if there was more
than one God, besides the True and Living God. He responded expressly, “No.”
After an accusation of polytheism regarding the doctrine of Christ (as a
distinct divine entity), he is then asked, “Is the Son of God the very Eternal
Father?” Amulek responded without hesitation, “Yea, he is the very Eternal
Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the
beginning and the end, the first and the last; And he shall come into the world
to redeem his people.” Amulek adds that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are
“one God,” claiming to have received his revelation about the incarnate God
from an angel (Alma 11:26-40, 44). </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The Nephite record further identifies “God
the Father” as Jehovah (“I am the First and I am the Last” – Isaiah 44:6), the
same who covenanted with Israel (Mormon 9:37), and the very same who “should
come down among the children of men, and take upon him the <i>form of man</i>”
in the person of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 13:34). This emphasis on the incarnation
of God is represented consistently throughout the Book of Mormon. As a
reflection of Joseph’s earliest theological views, the Book of Mormon didn’t
just allow for God’s anthropomorphism, it demanded it!</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In the Book of Mormon, an angel
proclaimed to Nephi the true identity of the person named Jesus: “the Lamb of
God <i>is</i> the Eternal Father, <i>and</i> the Savior of
the world.” This gives definition to the dualistic statement, “there is one God
and one Shepherd over all the earth,” namely, Jesus Christ (1 Nephi 13:40,41
1830 ed.). Jesus’ mother, Mary, is revealed as “the <i>mother of God</i>,
after the manner of the flesh,” and afterward the angel reiterates Jesus’
identity as “the Lamb of God, yea, <i>even the Eternal Father</i>!” (1
Nephi 11:18,21, 1830 ed.)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">How then should we understand the Book
of Mormon’s more explicit declarations regarding the identity of Jesus?
“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my
people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14).
Jesus does not simply claim the title of Father, he says "<i>I am</i> the
Father!" In the following chapter, Christ reiterates the point to Moroni:
“He that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For
behold, <i>I am the Father</i>, I am the light, and the life, and the
truth of the world” (Ether 4:12). There are many such statements littered
throughout the Book of Mormon.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">What then of the likewise numerous
incidents that draw distinction between the most high God and His Son (1 Nephi
11:6,26; Alma 14:5; 3 Nephi 17:14,15; etc.)? Some of them take the form of
poetic repetition and can be seen as consistent with the doctrinal
pronouncements of strict monotheism espoused throughout: “they had Christ for
their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father;” in other words
Christ is both shepherd and God the Father (Mormon 5:17).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The apparent confusion in the Book of
Mormon about who covenanted with tribal Israel is likewise dissolved by this
interpretation. Christ’s straightforward admission that “I am he that gave the
law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel” is reconciled with his
saying, “the Father hath made [the covenant] unto his people, O house of Israel”
by the summary proclamation, “I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole
earth;” for “the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one” (3 Nephi 11:14,36;
15:5; 20:12).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Still, there are cases of real
distinction. In every such case, however, the scripture borrows heavily from
New Testament texts, events, and vernacular (which itself doesn’t come close to
the Book of Mormon’s emphasis on tri-unity). The very best examples of
individuality (i.e. 3 Nephi, Father's witness, etc.) are not original, they are
borrowed from the King James NT almost verbatim. In fact, many of the subtle
alterations made to the text in transition show Joseph's redactional intent by
his plain response to Biblical controversies of his day. Accordingly, many of
the classic New Testament pronouncements repeated by Jesus in the Book of
Mormon are modified to remove aspects of apparent ambiguity and instead
harmonize Jesus' sayings in line with Joseph's visionary apologetic for Christ
and the Bible. He harmonized distinctions between members of the Godhead to fit
his own understanding of the trinity doctrine, which at the time insisted that
the Father and Son are the same. For example, notice the change in Jesus'
Sermon on the Mount as taught to the Nephites, “Be perfect even as<i> <b>I,
or</b></i> your Father who is in heaven[,] is perfect” (3 Nephi 12:48, cf.
Matt 5:48 - <b><i>variation</i></b>). They are identical.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Another when Christ is leaving the
Nephites; he teaches the people they “must always pray unto the Father in my
name.” Returning the following day, he finds the twelve disciples reiterating
his instructions to “pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.” Accordingly,
“they began to pray; and <i>they did pray unto Jesus</i>, calling him
their Lord and their God.” After a rendition of the intercessory prayer from
John 17, Jesus discovers “they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray
unto him.” Christ does not reprove them, he “<i>blessed them as they did pray
unto him</i>; and his countenance did smile upon them” (3 Nephi 18:19-21; 3 Ne
19:6,18,24,25). Thus, in the Nephite record at least, the intercessory prayer
is portrayed as a point for emulation rather than an interpersonal plea to a
superior deity. “As I have prayed among you even so shall ye pray in my church
… I have set an example for you” (3 Nephi 18:16).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">I find that other examples of
personality distinction between Father and Son in the Book of Mormon are best
understood as differentiation in their salvific roles. Why do I apply that
interpretation? I think it exerts the least amount of stress on the text.
Again, it should not be forgotten that the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost is emphasized repeatedly in the Book of Mormon, and more so than any
other standard work: “which is one God, without end,” “which are one God,”
“being one God,” etc. (2 Nephi 31:21; Mormon 7:7; Mosiah 15:5). </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Granted, this concept can be interpreted
any number of ways, but the book of Mormon is very specific in its unique
contributions. Unity of being is definitely implied in existential, ontological
terms: “For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we
are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and <i>he
is Christ</i>, and he cometh in the fullness of his own time” (2 Ne 11:7).
Prophets “testified of the coming of <i>Christ</i>… Behold, <i>he is
God</i>, and he is with them [in Jerusalem], and he did manifest himself unto
them” (Helaman 8:22,23; cf. 1 Nephi 10:17). An excellent summary of the
Nephite prophetic identification of God is as follows:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“He said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all
things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should
be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words,
he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come
down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth
upon the face of the earth.” (Mosiah 7:27)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Beyond that, the Book of Mormon goes out
of its way to expound in great detail the semantics behind Jesus Christ’s
identity as both the Father and the Son. According to the prophet Abinadi, “God
himself shall come down… and redeem his people.” He predicts, “because he [God]
dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the
flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father,
because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of
the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God,
yea,<i> the very Eternal Father</i> of heaven and of earth. And thus
the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one
God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth
himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people”
(Mosiah 15: 1-7).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In other words, it is Jesus’ conception
that makes “them” one God, validating both the titles 'Father' and 'Son'. This
teaching clearly sets forth the metaphysical oneness of God in Christ. Abinadi
further specifies that because of God’s incarnation in flesh, he becomes the
Son; and because his flesh submits to the Spirit (as the tabernacle of God), he
is the Father embodied. The appellations “Father” and “Son” are apparently
implied as a dualistic metaphor for mortal flesh submitting to divine will
represented in the embodied deity, Christ. Jesus thereby becomes the perfect
exemplar.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The Lord himself distinguished his title
of 'Son' as unique to an embodied deity, while his pre-incarnation person (or
spirit) was the Father God: “I come unto my own… to do the will, both of the
Father and of the Son – of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of
my flesh” (3 Nephi 1:14). This was spoken in anticipation of the incarnation;
more on that later. Hence, the various mechanisms of the Godhead represented mainly
by Father and Son are probably best understood as separate salvific roles
operating in the same divine being. Examples of Christ speaking about ascending
to the Father can easily be interpreted to suggest Jesus is reassuming his
patriarchal role in the heavens, as did the early Christian modalists with
corresponding NT texts. Getting back to Mosiah 15, verses 8-11 further
demonstrate the roles, or modes, fulfilled by this monadic Deity.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Christ is presented as the saving,
intercessory figure (taking Jehovah’s divine judgment upon himself) who can
simultaneously sympathize with mortals (flesh/Son) and appease perfect justice
(spirit/Father), allowing humanity entrance into the divine family by adoption.
This adoptive exchange is notably the only way in which humans are said to be
sons of God in the Book of Mormon. The later LDS doctrine of mankind as the
literal offspring of a divine parent finds no support here. To the contrary,
mortals <i>become</i> the sons of Christ by repentance and spiritual
rebirth (“he shall see his seed” – Mosiah 15:11). This perhaps clarifies the
creative emphasis of the title “Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all
things which in them are” found repeatedly in the book (Alma 11:39). Humans are
ontologically "other" from God in their natural, created state and
will remain as such until they repent and submit to Jesus as their Eternal
Father. At the end of his discourse, Abinadi refers to Jesus by this ultimate
name-title, “the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father” (Mosiah 16:15).
Ultimately, Jesus and God the Father are treated as an identical entity in the
Book of Mormon, even as their salvific roles are sometimes distinguished and
dramatized.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">To be clear, I don't believe Joseph
Smith ever viewed God in absolute, creedal Trinitarian terms, and the Book of
Mormon's fluid theology bears that through. Most Christians then and today
understand God in the Biblical vernacular of “Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost," but not at all in a rigorous theological sense. In my judgment,
the Book of Mormon teaches something that is much closer to the 3<sup>rd</sup> century
Christian heresy known as Monarchianism or Sabellianism. More broadly, this
'heretical doctrine' has been labeled <i>Modalism</i> for its
singular Deity enacting salvation through three special modes; viz., Father as
justice/will, Son as mercy/executor, and the Holy Ghost as
truth/sanctification. Thus, much of the sermonizing in the Book of Mormon
speaks of them distinctly for their relative meaning in the book's
soteriological-focused dramatization.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">As touched on earlier, however, these
divine titles were occasionally applied selectively depending on the time of
their usage relative to God's incarnation. Although God is identified clearly
as the embodied Christ throughout the Book of Mormon, some exceptional revelations
disclose his ontological status as a “Great Spirit” prior to Jesus' birth
(Alma 22:9). Indeed, Alma does not correct the apostate Zoramites in their
belief about God: “that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that
thou wilt be a spirit forever,” except for that last clause, which caused him
to lament their belief “that there shall be no Christ” (Alma 31:15,29).
Joseph's Book frames the Great Spirit God as Jesus, simply pre-embodiment (see
Ether 3). In the words of LDS historian Thomas Alexander, “The Book of Mormon
tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh,
revealed himself in Jesus” (Alexander, <i>The Reconstruction of Mormon
Doctrine</i>, p 25).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">So looking slightly beyond Mormonism's
founding text for a moment, but keeping it in mind, what more do Joseph's early
revelations teach about God's ontology? Not surprisingly, the contemporary
accounts are mostly harmonious. It has been contended by some that Joseph’s
1830 revision of Genesis 1:26,27 (taking place shortly after the Book
of Mormon's translation) necessarily implies that God and Jesus were
always considered separate, physical beings: “And I, God, said unto mine Only
Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness” (Moses 2:26). Given the general agreement of attitude
between most of these texts, it seems to me the distinction of personalities
here is more easily understood as an expansion of the existing creation drama
in Genesis - both extrapolating the plurality of speech already present in that
account while also incorporating the Logos doctrine from John 1. As we'll see
in future posts, Joseph revised the Genesis creation myth variously throughout
his prophetic career.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">The Godhead's union of identity in
Joseph Smith's early thought is elsewhere plainly attested in Joseph’s
biblical emmendations: “no man knoweth that the Son <i>is</i> the
Father, and the Father <i>is</i> the Son, but him to whom the Son
will reveal it.” And another that reflects Mosiah 15: “Christ Jesus… is
the Only Begotten Son of God, and ordained to be a Mediator between God and
man; <i>who is one God</i>” (JST Luke 10:22; JST 1 Timothy 4:2). The
earliest revelations given to Joseph likewise synthesize Father and Son
personalities in a vaguely modalistic way, while retaining the New Testament
rhetoric (D&C 3:20; 5:20; 6:2,16,21,37; 11:2,10,28; 19:1,4,16,18, 24; 29:
1, 42, 46; 49:5, 28; etc.). Hence, the early revelations and Joseph Smith’s
“Inspired Translation of the Bible” seem consonant with the Nephite record that
the Father and Son are co-operating mechanisms in one God, who was a spirit
being until his birth as Jesus Christ. Early Mormonism taught a kind of
chronological modalism, roughly.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Despite scholarly and ecclesiastical
condemnation of this “heresy” at its Christian advent, it persisted among laity
and practitioners of folk religion until Joseph Smith’s day. Although
Mormonism’s earliest converts were from a protestant background, the majority
were nevertheless seekers institutionally, primitivists theologically, and most
were ecclesiastically uneducated. So while these may have accepted modalism as
a consistent extension of biblical Christianity, there were some better trained
in theology who criticized the Book of Mormon’s concept of God as heterodox
early on (see Lucy Mack Smith, <i>Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith
the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations</i>, p 146). It was
not until he was surrounded by exceptional converts like Sidney Rigdon that
Joseph’s conception of the Godhead began to evolve toward something like Social
Trinitarianism – much closer to what the church teaches today.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Continued in <a href="http://theantianti.blogspot.com/2012/06/darwinian-deity-evolution-of-mormon.html">Part
II</a>...</span></div>
ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-74667064365238022192012-05-03T09:25:00.001-07:002016-01-02T15:27:45.176-08:00What's Your Damage, Soldier?<div style="text-align: left;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Col. Jessup:
“You want answers?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Lt. Kaffee:
“I think I’m entitled to them.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Col. Jessup:
“You want answers?!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Lt. Kaffee:
“I want the truth!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Col. Jessup:
“You can't handle the truth!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">– <i>A
Few Good Men</i> (1992)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">What a terrific exchange between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson! As
a film student, I really enjoyed the thematic conflict between these two
characters and their opposing values. It seems like both sides of the argument
have weight to them. Re-watching the movie more recently, however, I am
disturbed by how accurately this character clash represents the conflict of
ideals between those who demand undiluted truth in their religious worship and
those who feel justified in disclosing only that which is
faith-promoting – “Lying for the Lord.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">As a regular participant in priesthood quorums growing up, I was
often asked to teach lessons from the manual. I scoured through endnotes and
reference material hoping to find interesting quotes and background
information. I loved finding hidden gems that nobody knew about (in the
deacon’s quorum, mind you). Sometimes I was asked to speak in sacrament
meeting; I would accordingly boot up our family's noisy 56k modem and hope
nobody called the home phone number while I searched online for engaging
anecdotes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">On one such occasion, my Dad was helping me look for sources about
the fall of Adam when we ran across a search result flagging quotes for Brigham
Young, something about the “Adam-God Theory.” I glanced at my Dad for approval
and he nodded, intrigued. What we found was your prototypical Anti-Mormon site
– lots of quotes, little context. It was strange; I had been hearing inspired
teachings and stories about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the intrepid
pioneers who settled the Salt Lake Valley for years, but I had never heard
anything like <i>this</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">"Now
hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When
our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a <i>celestial
body</i>, and brought Eve, <i>one of his wives</i>, with him. He helped to
make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, <i>the Archangel</i>, the
ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken – HE <i>is
our</i> FATHER <i>and our</i> GOD, <i>and the only God with
whom</i> WE <i>have to do</i>. Every man upon the earth, professing
Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and <i>will know it sooner or
later.</i> … Who is the Father? He is the first of the human family.” –
Brigham Young (<i>Journal of Discourses</i>, Vol 1, p 50, EMPHASIS and <i>italics</i> theirs)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">My father and I exchanged a bewildered gaze, chuckling nervously.
I think neither of us quite knew what to make of it. Evidently my father didn’t
trust the site’s source because he asked me to click the supporting link. I'm
sure we were thinking the same thing: Brigham Young couldn’t have taught that
from the pulpit, right? Sure enough, we were presented with scans of Brigham’s
discourse dated 9 April 1852, straight out of the Journal of
Discourses (which is published by the Church). A General Conference address, no
less! We read the sermon in its entirety and decided there was no other
explanation – Brigham was off his rocker! Adam-God was <i>shelved</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">I share this story because although I didn't recognize it at the
time, it was a watershed moment in my faith development. In addition, I
understand that most of my readers don’t know me personally and I want to offer
some background for my thoughts. Perhaps some of you will be able to
relate. Let me here try to summarize my approach, and get to the bottom of
what exactly led to the wreckage of my faith in the LDS Church.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Throughout my youth, I was lead to believe that all of the
prophets from Adam to Enoch to Moses to Christ had been teaching the same
revealed truths and doctrines from the beginning. Essentially, the same things
I was learning in Sunday school every week. This first encounter with Brigham's
strange notions about our first parents is my earliest recollection of
differentiation among my inspired leaders. What I saw in that sermon didn't
line up with what I saw in the scriptures or what I was taught by current leadership. Eventually,
it evolved into an active discounting of certain prophets as
unreliable – mostly Joseph's early successors. The deeper I
delved into the history of LDS theological teachings, however, the more I
realized that Adam-God theory was only the tip of the iceberg.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In my previous post, I lamented my having passed the threshold of
trust in our prophets' divine callings. I have for all my life subscribed
to the credence they suggest they deserve in matters pertaining to God and
salvation. Apart from seeming anomalies like Brigham, they have until recently
retained the very best benefit of my doubts. But the more I learn about our
history and doctrines, the further I am forced to contort my reason around
substantial obstacles. While I admire their aspirations, the doctrine is
sufficiently diverse so as to frustrate my belief in a common origin for their
teachings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">That is why we follow the prophets in the first place, isn’t it?
Because they speak with God face-to-face and receive revelation like Moses and
the other patriarchs. The prophet is supposed to be God’s mouthpiece.
Ironically, it is because I have tried to honor their teachings as prophetic
that I have been “tossed to and fro, ... carried about with every wind of
doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). Too often, it became a question of ‘which prophet, which
era?’ rather than a sure source I could turn to for consistent guidance and
knowledge about religion. The more inconsistencies I discovered, the more I was
angry and frustrated that these things were hidden from the membership and that
I was misled to expect uniformity in the first place. Without this as an anchor
what else can we rely on to know the church is true, or that God is literally
guiding us as a people? Perhaps personal revelation is the answer. If my
graduation from the LDS seminary program has taught me anything, it is that I
can read and pray about the Book of Mormon to know Joseph Smith is a true
prophet, that the Church is true, and therefore gain a testimony that we
have a true prophet living on the earth today. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Sympathetic friends and counselors have wisely recommended that I
“seek revelation and apply the Alma principle in this process.” I can
honestly say I have given my best efforts to know the doctrine, to know God and
his Son as we teach them, and to know these things by the Spirit, as we define
it. I believe Alma teaches a true principle in Alma 32 – a scientific process
almost. Over the 13 years I have seriously pursued this process, I have
received no definitive, positive answer about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith,
or how the hell I am supposed to coalesce the mess that is Mormonism into
‘God’s Solemn, Revealed Truth.’ When I present my problem, the inevitable
response from members is a resounding ‘Shelve your concerns and <i>keep
praying</i>!’ How oft then must I pray over the same faith-seed that refuses to
grow?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Believe me, I have wanted it to grow. Desire and faith are not the
issue. With some kind of distinctive, divine confirmation my concerns could
feasibly fade into oblivion. But they amount to much greater significance
because my efforts to confirm the divine origin of the church have been
fruitless. I have employed Alma’s methodology in discovering the truth of the
Book of Mormon and the Restoration, but not to the desired results. “Therefore,
if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good,
therefore it is cast away” (Alma 32:32). I do not propose to throw out the baby
with the bath-water, but I am ready to re-examine the premise of my faith
and go where the evidence leads me. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">But the faithful don’t approve of this course of action. The
integral question becomes, at what point do we know we have prayed enough,
studied enough, searched enough to be able to make an earnest decision about
it? Doubtless, the orthodox opinion is ‘never.’ If you aren’t receiving a
positive answer, the obvious issue is your lack of sincerity, or real intent,
or faith in Christ, or patience, or endurance, or whatever. Something is amiss
in your life that is preventing you from experiencing the only possible outcome
– that our particular brand of religion is the ultimate truth for humanity. Did
you pray? Yes. Did you get a ‘Yes?’ No. Pray again until you do. That’s called
a circular argument, folks; the logical black hole.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">On the other hand, I am sympathetic to their plight. There was a
time in my life when I never could have considered the possibility of an
ultimate answer in the negative. Close relatives have been quick to observe
that my change of mind is probably the product of my choices since coming home
from my mission. I am 25, recently divorced, struggling to finance and complet
my college education, and still not really sure what I want to do for a career.
It is true that the path I have chosen in my life since I returned home from my
mission has been a key factor in my change of perspective. Without these life
experiences (some of which have fractured my traditional understanding of the
world around me), I would not have been willing to venture much thought into
these problems. Not because they did not merit thought, but because they were
contrary to my faith paradigm and were therefore easier to ignore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">It was the disruptive that pushed me out of my comfort zone and
allowed me to see what I now see with clarity. Some who are close to me have
expressed the opinion that my judgment is shrouded and I am set on a course
that could destroy my soul. I don’t blame them personally for this judgmental
point of view; leaders of the church have consistently espoused a
self-confirming methodology to deal with outside/contrary thought. If I am in
agreement with orthodoxy and properly aligned, then I am clean and coming unto
Christ. If am in opposition on any point, then I am a heretic, apostate, etc.
Admittedly, this is a simplification, but the underlying principle can be found
in the Lord’s moniker: “And by this you may know they are under the bondage of
sin, because they come not unto me. For whoso cometh not unto me is under the
bondage of sin” (D&C 84:50-51). In the church’s view, for all intents and
purposes, they are “the Lord.” So that leaves myself and others like me “guilty
until proven innocent,” so to speak.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">This tactic of criticizing a contrarian’s spiritual standing
arouses my mind to an increasingly apparent source of irritation to me. I have
been vocal about my concerns in the hopes that I can find support and possibly
answers in my struggle. But in an effort to discourage inactivity and
questioning leadership, church authorities (and the membership by extension)
assume and imply moral fault in questioning individuals to thereby disarm their
criticisms and discredit their voice as part of the community. Henceforth, any
issues or questions I could raise automatically hold zero merit due to their
perceived nature, regardless of how substantial the comments are. With regards
to cultural, social, and possibly ecclesiastical standing, it seems that honest
critical analysis of our history, leadership, or official church doctrine feels
tantamount to tightrope walking the New York City skyline without a parachute;
it is kamikaze in nearly every sense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Considering this experience, I am led to reflect on the sad
historical reality that has played out for those honest enough to point out the
vices with the virtues. Real cultural/historical studies aspiring to embrace an
unbiased approach have been summarily dismissed by leadership and even
denounced from the pulpit by general authorities (even ones as generous as
Bushman’s <i>Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling</i>). Take for example D.
Michael Quinn’s <i>Early Mormonism and the Magic World View</i> or
Richard Van Wagoner’s <i>Mormon Polygamy: A History</i>. Historians who
strive for these ideals are too often censored and disallowed speaking
privileges in meetinghouses. Case in point, Linda K. Newell & Valeen
Tippets Avery were censored for their work on the award-winning biography, <i>Mormon
Enigma: Emma Hale Smith,</i> because it portrays “a non-traditional view
of Joseph Smith [and early church history],” according to the LDS hierarchy
(Preface to the Second Edition, <i>Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith</i>, p
xii). In defense of this action, Elder Dallin H. Oaks offered:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">"My duty
as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique
about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding
the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. <b>Everything
else may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential
facts.</b> Thus, if <i>Mormon Enigma</i> reveals information
that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to
try to limit its influence and that of its authors."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">– Linda King
Newell, “The Biography of Emma Hale Smith,” 1992 <i>Pacific Northwest
Sunstone Symposium</i>, audiotape #J976; as quoted in Anderson,<i> Inside
the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon,</i> p
xliii, fn 28; <b>Emphasis</b> mine.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Discussion of these facts is thence left to outliers and
“apostates”, usually forced to the sidelines by the common rhetoric ideal:
Either the church is true or it is not. Black or white. No middle-ground. Do we
not understand that by thus marginalizing thoughtful, believing members because
of historical and doctrinal studies, we are creating artificial apostates?
Despite what the Book of Mormon says about cosmic duality, my experience in the
world and in the church tells me nothing is simply black and white. We build
straw-man dichotomies when we say, “Each of us has to face the matter – either
the church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the
church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing” (Hinckley, “Loyalty,” April 2003 General
Conference). By following the brethren and local leaders, the general
membership will therefore zealously dismiss any rational thought or discussion
of alternative concepts. The author of a subversive Book of Mormon commentary
summarizes the resulting problem of “group faith” conformity:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“It may as
well be a dream. It involves our collective slumber. We get pictures in our
head when we are taught some truth and presume that the picture is accurate.
Then after we have repeated the “truth” often enough, we go on to believe the
picture must be all-inclusive.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Once we’ve
arrived at that point, the truth no longer matters. Our minds are made up.
We’ve decided the answers, and no further evidence will be considered. This
certainly is reinforced when more people reach the same conclusion because they
share the same picture in their head. You get together with others and testify
that you are all in possession of the truth; not only the truth, but ALL of the
truth. Before long every one of the group can pass a lie-detector test about
the truth as they explain it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“As a result,
this herd is incapable of ever seeing the picture differently. They cannot open
their minds to the idea that their picture is skewed or off. It is most
certainly incomplete. It is, in fact, so far short of the whole story that when
any part of the remaining missing information is shown to them they are certain
it is a lie.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“It is
painful to part with our suppositions and the traditions we hold dear. It is
painful to admit there may be much more of the picture we have not yet
considered, much less seen. It causes anxiety and fear. So much fear in fact,
that when it comes to 'eternal truth,' people literally put their lives in
jeopardy if they denounce the falsehoods of the herd and proclaim the truth to
those whose peace of mind and self-identity is tied to the incomplete and
misleading picture they believe holds all truth.”<u1:p></u1:p> (Snuffer, Jr., <i>Removing
The Condemnation, </i>p 3, emphasis<i> </i>his)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">In hindsight, it seems clear to me the lengths we sometimes go to
reach the perceived community consensus. True opportunities for learning are
thusly extinguished for the sake of comfortable unity. Pride is another element
that sometimes prevents us from seeing reality beyond our prescribed filters.
No matter the underlying reasons, when authority is automatically exercised to
silence heterodox thought, our growth is stunted. It is written, “when we
undertake to ... gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control
or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree
of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the
Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority
of that man [/organization]” (D&C 121: 37). <i>Amen</i>!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">John Stuart Mill echoes my sentiments on freedom of thought/reason
in a community context: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an
opinion is, that it is robbing the human race ... those who dissent from the
opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are
deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose,
what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression
of truth, produced by its collision with error” (John S. Mill, <i>On
Liberty</i>, 1869, emphasis mine). The summarized result is a policy of
half-disclosure typified by Boyd Packer’s rationalization: “There is a
temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell
everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that
are true are not very useful” (Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater
Than the Intellect", 1981, <i>BYU Studies</i>, Vol 21, No 3, pp
259-271).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">I take it as an absurd attitude of spiritual arrogance and condescension
for the brethren to withhold substantial and truthful information on the basis
of protecting the "integrity" of the church's essential truth claims.
It does more harm to believers to be dishonest, to tell half-truths, and censor
sensitive topics completely than to be forthright and potentially hurt some
feelings. It is also counter-productive to crusade against honest seekers who
are pursuing truth. Doubt and skepticism can be as much a part of finding one’s
footing in life and religion as faith and hope. But in our spiritual economy,
we too often place a premium on absolute, unquestioning obedience:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">"Some
members are constantly evaluating the gospel by the standards of the world. …
[Some] common reservations are flagged by words such as 'yes, but . . .' when
scriptures or prophets are quoted. Or we may hear, <b>'I am not going
to let the Church make my decisions for me.'</b> Obedience is a
fundamental law of the gospel. … But the philosophical standard of the world
holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience
is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to
the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the
point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be
recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets — to be worthy of
obedience. … Let us believe all things. <b>Let us
have unquestioning faith in all of the doctrines and truths of the
restored gospel.</b>” (Elder Robert C. Oaks, "Believe All Things,"<i> Ensign</i>,
July 2005, page 30<u1:p></u1:p>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Contrast this to an earlier mantra belonging to Brigham Young’s
presidency. To his credit, he insisted the Saints use their God-given freedom
to think, act, and question for themselves:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“What a pity
it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of
this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their
leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led
by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security,
trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless
confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…”
– Brigham Young, 12 Jan 1862 (Young, <i>Journal of Discourses</i>, Vol 9,
p 150)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">And Again:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“<b>None are
required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the
priesthood</b>. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they
would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they
knew it was wrong; but <b>such obedience as this is worse than folly to
us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade
himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings</b>, until he turns
from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme
exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was
necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their
presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of
Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach
them to the people, <b>it is generally because they have it in their minds
to do wrong themselves.</b>” – Elder Samuel Richards (Richards, <i>Millennial
Star </i>14: 593-595 – <b>Emphasis </b>mine)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">So it ought to be. Joseph Smith originally delineated his theology
from that of Methodism and other Christian sects of the day by noticing the
common restraints placed on free thought and theological expression. Joseph’s
foundational claims were based on the drive for <i>truth</i>! He says, “I
want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds
set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I
cannot subscribe to” (Oct. 1843 Address, <i>Documentary History of the
Church</i> 6: 56-59). This open-mindedness was part of the religious
genius that made him such a dynamic charismatic. Unfortunately, even in
Joseph’s lifetime limits were installed to dictate where exactly free thought
and free speech could flow. Certainly not against Joseph’s person, lest you
invite a flying trumpet your way or the destruction of your printing press.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Speaking of which, I recently read through the Nauvoo Expositor
again. I recommend you read it for yourself (good scans of the original
facsimiles <a href="http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm#pg1c1b">here</a>).
Perhaps many will be reticent to read from its pages. Most know that it was the
beginning of the end for Joseph Smith. Or rather, the subject of the paper was
the beginning – polygamy, plurality of Gods, power-mongering, etc. – the
issuance of the paper itself was the culmination of these woes. Having trusted
apologetic scholarship for so many years, I was expecting to find the
blackened, vicious lies that were promised me all along. Instead, I was
seriously disappointed to find still more corroboratory testimony of Joseph’s
private promiscuity and abuse of his ecclesiastical privileges. It pains me to
think that I blindly trusted the words of respected leaders and apologists when
they described the bitter, enraged apostasy of so many previously faithful members
who conspired to disavow the Lord’s anointed, and slander his good name and
character.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">These were decent men like First Presidency member William Law,
who, “with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, [plead] with him to
withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced
to teach to some of the brethren [privately]... Mr. Law pleaded for this with
Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes” (Joseph W. McMurrin, “Mr. Law’s
Testimony”, <i>Improvement Era</i> (May 1903), 507-510; also
available <a href="http://en.fairmormon.org/City_of_Nauvoo/Nauvoo_Expositor#endnote_law3">here</a>). After
Joseph allegedly approached William’s wife, Jane, to propose a polyandrous
relationship, his friendship with William spoiled and distrust encumbered them
both. Joseph denied charges of polygamous practice vehemently in public and
slandered anyone who opposed him. Ultimately, Joseph illegally removed William
from the First Presidency and from fellowship with the Twelve on 8 Jan 1844,
the same day William recorded the following in his Nauvoo diary:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I thank God
that He opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to
plurality & community of wives, and that I had fortitude to tell Joseph
that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I
have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side, and if I am
persecuted it is because I vindicate principles of virtue and justice, not that
I wish to injure any man, but <b>I love the truth</b>, and hate to see the
virtuous destroyed and brought down into corruption and vice, and finally cast
upon the world as unclean.” – William Law (Lyndon W. Cook, <i>William Law</i>,
p 46,47 – <b>Emphasis </b>mine)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Knowing now more fully the manner in which Joseph conducted
himself in employing polygamy in his private affairs, and having read the words
of these “apostates” for myself, I can sympathize with them fully. It is
fitting then that William and his brother Wilson, in company with a few others,
took courage at the risk of reputation, property, and apparently their lives in
order to stand for the truth. William chose the adage, “<i>The Truth, The Whole
Truth, and Nothing But The Truth</i>,” for the tagline of his expository
newspaper, the <i>Nauvoo Expositor</i>. The first and only issue was
printed 7 June 1844; it claimed to reveal the truth about the prophet's illegal
and immoral actions in Nauvoo. Joseph and the city council had the printing
press and office destroyed two days later, an action which ironically resulted
in more damage than the paper alone could have managed. Joseph was murdered
within weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u2:p></u2:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p><u3:p></u3:p>It
is for this reason that I have adopted William’s tagline – both to pay homage
to the premiere “Anti-Mormon” publication whose function was to shed light on
"secret combinations," and to somehow offset my decidedly Pro-Mormon
blog title. Ironically, the purported anthem on both sides of the spectrum is
the worthiness of the sincere truth quest. The question then I reiterate: is
the truth better served by full-disclosure, or are we justified in selectively
representing it to serve a higher cause?</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment--></div>
ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543682377507081316.post-47050047910902790332012-04-24T17:16:00.001-07:002015-01-05T11:13:10.515-08:00No Fanaticism. No Apologetics. Just Full Disclosure.<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">Anti-Mormonism. It’s a dirty, dirty word
where I come from.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
You see I grew up hearing stories of my father’s run-ins with anti-Mormons on
his mission in Phoenix, Arizona. He served in ’83-84, during the height of the
new Anti-LDS fervor – Gerald and Sandra Tanner had recently published the likes
of <i>Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?</i> and <i>The God Makers</i>,
whilst eventual murderer Mark Hofmann was redirecting the LDS consciousness
toward Mormonism’s “magical origins.” At the same time, historians both
friendly and hostile were being slowly squeezed out of access to sensitive
primary-source documents surrounding early Mormon history. Mormonism was in the
media in a big way.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Anyway, as a greenie my dad and his trainer tracted into a couple that invited
a protestant minister named James White, of <i>Alpha & Omega
Ministries</i>, to join them. They cordially invited the missionaries into the
study. The chairs were already set up. As they entered a room lined with
shelves of books on religious topics, the elders noticed some “anti-Mormon”
literature and accordingly braced themselves for the impending conflict. Only a
month fresh into the mission field, the experience rocked my father at the time
– he spent the next several months fishing the scriptures for useful
“apologetic” references on a wide variety of topics so that next time he encountered
anti-Mormons, he could better defend his faith.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
I myself have had plenty of opportunities growing up to interact with the
anti-Mormon community and the arguments they enlist. I used to spend my spring
evenings as a youth listening to their rants as they picketed the Mesa Easter
pageant; I came to know some of them by name. These are the same guys that
protest General Conference in Salt Lake City twice a year. I always looked at
them with the same secret vitriol they displayed openly toward members of the
church. The venom they spit should have been sufficient for me to disregard
everything they said and walk away. Why were their accusations so bothersome to
me, and yet alluring? I couldn’t quite put my thumb on it. But it drove me to
study and “contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
I have several scholarly uncles on my mother’s side who introduced me to Mormon
apologetics and supported me in my early scholastic pursuits. As a teacher and
priest in the Church, I discovered and relished the writings of big gun
defenders such as Nibley, Sperry, and Welch. I gained an affection for the
hidden truths that underpinned some of our more confusing/controversial
doctrines; they fascinated me and gave hope that we could withstand the
assailant outcries, that I could “be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” I spent a great deal
of time leading up to my mission perusing the FARMS section of Deseret Book and
scanning FAIRLDS.org to get an edge on the touchy topics.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Finally arriving in the Oregon Eugene mission, my preparations earned me a
reputation for ready rebuttals and healthy debate when the occasion arose. We
didn’t do much Bible-bashing in our mission, though a few of us had a nose for
it (made readily apparent at the Eugene bus terminals). It was rarely a
productive exercise anyhow. My skills were more useful in situations where
investigators had been confronted with anti-Mormon literature from concerned
friends or family. Or alternatively, when missionaries were being stalked and
harassed by zealous “born again” adherents. They occasionally enlisted Elder
Fackrell's help and I would accordingly write point-for-point
counter-arguments, usually to the silence of the antagonists and the
satisfaction of the elders. I was endowed with a new name: “Just the Facks!”</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
But privately in my studies, I was encountering problems with our theology,
with our doctrines, and with our scriptures. Particularly the Book of Mormon. I
had previously read the New Testament, but never before with the familiar
scrutiny of my mission study sessions. As I did so, I began to see just how
indebted the Book of Mormon is to Biblical discourse, in exact phraseology and
vernacular. Why were Paul’s writings showing up in the words of Native American
prophets years before he wrote them? Also, the New Testament “church” didn’t
come out quite as clearly as I gathered in previous, cursory readings. Suffice
it to say, things weren’t aligning the way I had been taught to expect, and it
was a serious frustration for me personally.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Nevertheless, I continued to faithfully testify of the Gospel restoration
despite my internal, mounting doubts. I wrote my uncles and my father about
segments of my concerns, and they offered helpful insight that allowed me to
shelve the issues, if only temporarily. I finished my mission honorably and
returned home grateful for the opportunity to serve. I had a few
disappointments that I tried to ignore, prayers toward the end that never elicited
satisfactory answers. Life happened, the proverbial shit hit the fan, and my
concerns perpetually resurfaced. As I strived to connect with God on this most
important subject, I became less willing to accept flimsy, placeholder answers.
I decided I could no longer put off my pursuit of substantial resolutions to
increasingly legitimate questions.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Over the last year, I have applied myself in the pursuit and study of reliable
primary-source documents, friendly or not. I became familiar with the so-called
“new Mormon history,” first initiated with Fawn Brodie’s infamous biography of
Joseph Smith and carried to prominence by the likes of Arrington, Quinn, and
Vogel. The more I tried to congeal and harmonize what I found in the teachings
of the Mormon prophets, the more I came to doubt the source of their
inspiration and revelation. They were too disparate, too fractured for me to
continue assuming that their callings were divine based on positive feelings
about the Book of Mormon or a “testimony” earned in its repetition. My
faith barrier snapped and I passed the threshold of trust in our prophets'
divine callings.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
My trust in Mormon theology failed first, which lead me to examine the history
and practice more closely. For the first time, I began to shed my native
LDS bias and look at the historical documentation with honest eyes. What I
found in our church's history, our doctrine, and our practice was disturbing to
me. I grew up in a culture that taught me not to trust the philosophies of men
(read: anything not preached from a Mormon pulpit), warned me about the
Satan-inspired lies that were uttered by church opponents, and slandered the
character and reputations of “apostates.” But reality tells a different tale.
Mormon origins do not consist of the varnished, immaculate miracle story we are
told in LDS seminaries. The doctrine restored in 1830 does not exactly resemble
the religion practiced by the ancient Semites, the Jews, or the primitive
Christians, to say nothing of what is taught in the church today. And there are
as many naturalistic explanations for Joseph’s calling and revelations as
supernatural – quantitatively and qualitatively more, in my opinion.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
The truth is, I found myself oscillating between revulsion at learning much of
my upbringing was a fraud, and revulsion at learning anti-Mormons had quite a
bit of validity to their points. It was fanaticism on either end, whether
apologist or apostate; both lied, took out of context, and selectively ignored
things to justify their native position. Neither of them are truly trustworthy,
but both are mostly sincere. I am still incensed by the betrayal, and
frustrated that there was legitimacy to arguments that were easier to write off
when I assumed there was nothing of substance to their claims.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
I still hate the attitude, or tone, employed by your prototypical anti-Mormon.
It is harsh, in some cases hateful, and does nothing to emphasize the
seriousness of their concerns about Mormonism’s truth claims. And I believe
strongly they are worth addressing and resolving if possible. Personally,
however, I no longer require the outcome to conform to the predisposed
conclusions of my upbringing. If after weighing the evidence, we conclude that
Joseph was most likely lying about the origins of the Egyptian papyrus, and its
attendant revelation, so be it. I have been open and honest publicly about my
studies and observations in the hopes that I can check myself against error or
subconscious preference. Two heads are better than one, right?</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
I have been very disappointed by the reaction of most of my friends and family
who belong to the LDS community. I feel I have been very generous in my
comments and constructive in my criticisms. For all of my kindly candor, it is
returned to me again with malice, with negative insinuations, and with all the
rancor and bitterness of an exchange between opposing polemicists. I am being
accused of consuming anti-Mormon literature and thrusting it upon the faithful
masses. Well, no more. The delusion that anything in opposition to contemporary
Mormon thought or tradition is “anti-Mormon” needs to be quelled. To fight
against a true principle or fact, even if ignorantly, is to kick against the
pricks.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
When it comes to scrutiny in the pursuit of truth, nothing should be sacred.
All of it must be submitted to rigorous examination. According to Joseph Smith,
we cannot fail to do so and come out true Mormons. He proclaimed,</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“Truth is Mormonism.” </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">(Jessee, Personal Writings of
Joseph Smith, 389). </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Brigham Young also taught:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“If there is a truth among the ungodly
and wicked it belongs to us, and if there is a truth in hell it is ours.”
“Mormonism is all truth in heaven, on earth or in hell. … All truth is ours.
Now if anybody wants to make a trade, come on! If you have truths, and I have
errors, I will give ten errors for one truth…” “Mormonism embraces all truth
that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political,
scientific, or philosophical.” “Mormonism includes all truth.” (<i>JD</i> 12:155,
14:280-281, 9:149, 11:375 respectively). </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
Now that ideal is a “marvelous work and a wonder!” Contrast this early
sentiment to the modern church’s promotion of complacent ignorance:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“I have a hard time with historians
because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I
could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are
ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them.
Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and
uplifting" – Boyd K. Packer (Quinn ed., Faithful History: Essays
On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22). </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
This ideology is revolting to me. Evidently, some of the leading brethren
today lack the capacity to register the difference between lying about a
person’s physical appearance, and lying about doctrines, practices, and
historical facts that are potentially relevant to one’s salvation and beliefs.
If I may correct the anti-Mormons in their fervor – the most pernicious
“Satanism” perpetuated in the Mormon Church is our prescribed tolerance of
half-truths. We may not be aware of that fact, but it is true nonetheless, and
it ought not be so. As someone who has been accused of espousing anti-Mormon
philosophy, let me just say that Mormons are not the enemy at all; ignorance is
the enemy. A zeal without knowledge is the problem, and that too by our own
foundational standards. In the words of Grant Palmer:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, serif; font-size: 18pt;">“According to early Mormonism,
‘Truth is Mormonism’ and thus it is <i>falsehood itself</i> that
is anti-Mormon.” (Palmer, "What is Anti-Mormon?" – available <a href="http://mormonthink.com/grant4.htm">here</a>)</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p><br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: start; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times",serif; font-size: 18.0pt;"><br />
If we really have the truth as we claim, we have nothing to fear and nothing to
hide, anti-Mormons and apologists be damned. Throughout this major life
transition, I have retained my aversion to the tone and label of
anti-Mormonism. Hence, “The Anti-Anti.” It’s not so much that I have an
aversion to their conclusions, just a reticence to employ fanaticism in dealing
with the subject of religion. Let the zealots deal with politics.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--EndFragment--></div>
ParadoxNOWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948804236767472785noreply@blogger.com14