In this inaugural episode of “Matters of Perspective,” Rick Jepson reads his November 2005 Sunstone article, “Godwrestling: Physicality, Conflict, and Redemption in Mormon Doctrine,” which explores through many different angles the transformative power of struggle, both physical and spiritual. It contains one of the most complete discussions in all of Mormon writing of the Genesis story of Jacob’s wrestle with the angel, and links Jacob’s transformation from this intense battle with physical ordeals in the lives of other prophets, especially Joseph Smith, as well as Jesus’s struggle to complete the Atonement. It also examines in wonderful ways Jacob’s and Esau’s difficult relationship, Jacob’s struggle to win the esteem of his father, Isaac, and even some of the reasons it was  important for him to break free from the influence of his mother, Rebekah. It also teaches us a ton of fascinating things about wrestling!

This article is a master example of the power of both the personal voice–Jepson reveals a great deal about himself and formative experiences in his life and that of his family–as well as first-rate scholarship. We are so pleased to offer it as the first in the Matters of Perspective series!

______

Link to the article (which includes endnotes with many interesting extras).

Joining Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in reflecting on this current moment are podcast veterans, professor, blogger, and LDS commentator Joanna Brooks, professor and holder of the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University Philip Barlow, and first-time podcast guest and business strategist Scott Holley, who served as a key analyst for the survey.

We hope you’ll enjoy the discussion and will share your thoughts in the comment section below!

_____

Links to Sources:

Preliminary results of Open Stories Foundation Survey

Joanna Brooks Religion Dispatches blog post on Mormonism facing its history

Reuters article reporting on Elder Marlin Jensen’s remarks at Utah State University

Salt Lake Tribune article about topics under discussion in this podcast

Deseret News article about topics under discussion in this podcast

Carrie Sheffield Washington Post essay on LDS Church in need of reform

To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

Our controversial guest post today is from Rock Waterman.  Check out the original unabridged post at his blog, Pure Mormonism, so titled from his observation that the organic religion founded by Joseph Smith was nondogmatic and libertarian.

A couple of weeks ago Jeff Riggenbach sent me his latest book, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism. I’ve had a passion for revisionist history for as long as I can remember, but something I read in Riggenbach’s informative volume caught me up short. It was an essential factor that I had never known or considered before, and which just so happens to have direct application to why the historical record about Joseph Smith and Polygamy is so confusing and contradictory.

While doing the research for her biography of Joseph Smith back in the 1940′s, Fawn Brodie wrote to a friend that “the more I work with the polygamy material, the more baffled I become.” She has not been alone. Every biographer since has struggled with the dichotomy of what Joseph Smith asserted and what the historical record appears to show.

I think Jeff Riggenbach may have uncovered the explanation for us.

Correcting The Past

If the study of history can be defined as “the science of discovering what happened,” then revisionism is the forensic science of methodically re-sifting through the evidence of the past to get at the truth of what really happened. According to Joseph R. Stromberg, “revisionism refers to any efforts to revise a faulty existing historical record or interpretation.”

Harry Elmer Barnes, the father of modern revisionist history, describes revisionism as “the effort to revise the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude.” As Riggenbach himself succinctly puts it, “We need to revise the historical record when we have new facts.”

What surprised me about Riggenbach’s book — and which is directly applicable to our discussion here — is his revelation that until quite recently there was no such thing as “history” as we usually think of it; that is, the kind of history that could actually be relied upon:

“It was the tail end of the 19th century before the calling of the historian had been professionalized and academicized to such an extent that a majority of practitioners in the field had come to hold the view of their discipline that we now take for granted -the historian as dispassionate seeker of truth, a scholar, much more like an anthropologist…Still, there were holdouts.” (Pg 27)

One “holdout” in the arena of Mormon historians may have been Joseph Fielding Smith, whose book Essentials in Church History was a book all missionaries were armed with in my day, and which turns out to have been of no more real use to the student of Mormon history than the 9/11 Commission Report is today for the person desiring to find out the complete truth about that particular event.  I relied upon Elder Smith’s book during my mission when I gave a presentation to a class of high school seniors in Milan, Missouri where I used it to refute “anti-Mormon lies” about Mormon complicity in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Elder Smith (an apostle at the time he wrote it) placed the blame for the massacre squarely on the local Indians and John D. Lee, who he painted as a renegade Mormon with only a tenuous connection to the church. At any rate, he strongly implied, the members of the Fancher party were asking for it and had it coming.  Even today I feel like a dupe and a fool when I remember how vehemently I defended the official church position against what was the real truth of that sordid affair.

But to give him his due, Joseph Fielding Smith was little different than any other compiler of American history a hundred years ago, including the most famous and reputable of all, George Bancroft, whose ten volume History of the United States, published in 1874, remained the unchallenged standard work for decades. But even Bancroft’s classic History was far from objective:

“Bancroft believed that his job was to write a chronicle that would make his readers proud of their country’s history, and when it suited his didactic purpose, he fabricated.” (Why American History Is Not What They Say, Pg 27)

It was not only Bancroft who was making up history to suit his agenda; Riggenbach demonstrates how this “style” was common among virtually all historians of the time. He shows how “most of them saw themselves in particular as the providers of an important kind of inspirational literature.” Facts were elastic. This practice of bending reality to fit the lesson plan was rampant in the 19th century. It was systemic. And it was considered normal. One can easily see the parallels between writers wishing to portray actions of the American government favorably, and those within the LDS church tasked with portraying Mormon history in the most positive light. According to Riggenbach:

“The American history taught in most schools during the past hundred years faithfully reflected received opinion, and received opinion sees the United States as a consistent, devoted partisan of the same spirit of individual liberty that once moved its founders -a peace-loving nation that wishes the rest of the world only the best, and never goes to war except in self-defense.”

“Apply this set of principles to what we know of the past and, at the end of the day, you’ll wind up with quite a pile of facts that didn’t meet the criteria and now litter the cutting room floor.”

“The facts about the gross violations of individual liberty that have been championed by U.S. presidents almost since the beginning, for example -John Adams’s Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson’s genocidal treatment of the American Indians, Abraham Lincoln’s military conscription (to say nothing of his suspension of habeas corpus and his imprisonment of newspaper editors who dared to disagree with his prosecution of the Civil War), William McKinley’s brutal suppression of the independence movement in the Philippines after the Spanish American War, Franklin Roosevelt’s order to round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and imprison them in concentration camps- are any of these inconvenient facts likely to be selected for inclusion in a textbook based on the “commonly shared principle” of the saintliness of the U.S. government?” (Pg. 24)

Similarly we Mormons may ask ourselves if we should really expect inconvenient facts that reflect poorly on the “saintliness” of our church leaders to find their way into books and Sunday School manuals published by the church.

History: It Ain’t What It Used To Be

In 1972 the church appointed LDS Professor Leonard J. Arrington as the official Church Historian. This was the first time a real historian, a trained academic, had been given that post. This important office had always been held by a general authority. Arrington opened up the massive church archives to other Mormon academics, and the era of The New Mormon History was born. Surprise, surprise! That magic era didn’t last long; just barely a decade.

The archives were a treasure house of information for the excited historians involved. They were soon discovering things that the even the current leadership of the church hadn’t known about. Paul Toscano reports that Hyrum L. Andrus was opening wooden crates full of church records that had been nailed shut since they left Nauvoo in 1846. All kinds of fascinating stuff was in there. Books and essays were written based on these newly found letters, diaries, journals, newspapers, and records. But not all of the information in these documents was seen as favorable to church leadership. Some of the revisions seemed to contradict elements of what had become the official church history.

A massively ambitious multi-volume church history was planned, utilizing the talents of the church’s most qualified scholars and historians. Then one day the order came down from on high to scrap the project, and the historian’s office was “reorganized.” Arrington, who had been introduced at general conference with great fanfare for a vote of approval ten years earlier, was quietly released in 1982 without even a mention in conference or any vote of thanks. The position of Church Historian was again placed into the hands of a trusted general authority. The archives were closed to all but a select few, and have remained closed to this day.

For a fascinating example of the work of a revisionist Mormon historian, and and insight as to why revisionism is such a volatile subject to some within the church, let’s look at Richard Van Wagoner’s reexamination of the famous transmogrification of Brigham Young.

Mighty Morphing Fact Arrangers

We all know the basic story. It goes something like this. After the death of Joseph and Hyrum, the church was left leaderless. So the million dollar question on everyone’s mind: Who was next in line to lead it? A meeting was called, and Sidney Rigdon was first to speak. As the story goes, Rigdon got up and campaigned for himself to be the new prophet. Then it was Brigham Young’s turn, and as he spoke, the gathered throng witnessed a miracle. It looked to them as if Brigham Young had been transformed into Joseph Smith before their very eyes. Brigham’s visage became Joseph’s visage, his voice was Joseph’s voice, his mannerisms were Joseph’s. Clearly the spirit of Joseph Smith himself had returned to witness to the membership that Brigham Young was his anointed successor.

That’s the way most of us have heard it, but virtually every element of that story is false. Nothing even remotely resembling the described supernatural transformation took place. How do we know? We have new facts. Using letters, diaries, journals, newspaper accounts, and church records, Van Wagoner walks us through the event. He revises the history. You can read his essay here: The Making of a Mormon Myth. (You can find another excellent analysis by Reid L. Harper in the Fall 1996 Journal of Mormon History.)

The simple but true facts are that on August 8th, 1844, Sidney Rigdon, as remaining member of the First Presidency, spoke to a large gathering of the Saints, advocating that the church continue to be led by a triumvirate with himself as President. The next day, Brigham Young gave a speech proposing that the church instead should be governed by the twelve apostles as a body. He was not campaigning to be the next leader himself, nor would anyone have accepted him if he had made such a proposal. The membership eventually voted in favor of Brigham’s plan because he made the better speech and it was considered wiser that church government be spread among the twelve rather than to continue with a new First Presidency under the ailing Sidney Rigdon.

And that was it. No image, no visions, no voice. Just a rip-roaring good sermon by Brigham Young. There was no transfiguration of Brigham Young into the form of Joseph Smith, no morphing, no eerie ghost noises, no nothing.

Again, how do we know? From primary sources; the letters, diaries, journals, and newspapers of the time. Brigham’s speech was reported on in detail in both Nauvoo newspapers and recorded by scribes for the official church records. Hundreds of members present wrote about Brigham’s persuasive argument in great detail in their private journals. Nowhere was there a mention of the miraculous or divine. Not a hint.

Until years later.

Van Wagoner takes us through the transformation; not the transformation of Brigham to Joseph, but the transformation from historical truth to historical legend.

You Really Had To Be There

After the saints were settled in Utah, church leadership began to shake out in the form of a hierarchy with certain apostles recognized as having seniority over others. Almost immediately Brigham Young forsook the plan he had proposed that church affairs should be administered by the Twelve equally, and quietly adopted the plan that had been proposed by Sidney Rigdon — with himself in Sidney Rigdon’s place.

Although in his famous speech in the grove at Nauvoo Brigham had insisted that “you can’t put anyone at the head of the Twelve,” in no time he managed to maneuver himself at the head of the Twelve and into the role of successor to the prophet Joseph Smith. This aggrandizement was not what the Saints had originally voted for, but Brigham had more than proven his leadership abilities by getting them across the plains and settled in, and who were they to question the senior member of the Quorum?

It was soon being spoken about that “the mantle of Joseph had fallen on Brigham.” What that meant exactly was anybody’s guess. “Mantle” is both a verb and a noun, and is a very abstract term in this sense. Nothing tangible or spiritual or visible had actually “fallen” on Brigham Young. It was meant as a metaphor. But in 1857, 13 years after the speech in the grove, Albert Carrington took the account one step further. In a speech before a huge gathering of Saints, he said that he couldn’t tell Brigham from Joseph that day when Brigham was speaking.

Someone else soon claimed that he had sensed the very spirit of Joseph Smith while Brigham had been speaking. Then another person declared that he saw the very personage of Joseph take over Brigham’s body.

That was all it took. Mark Twain has famously said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Human nature being what it is, there was soon no shortage of pioneers declaring that they had seen the miraculous transformation too. It was a sign! It was a miracle! Brigham Young had been transformed by the spirit of Joseph Smith into the image of Joseph Smith himself!

Some of the most prominent church leaders got caught up in the illusion. “His words went through me like electricity,” testified apostle Orson Hyde in 1869, “It was not the voice of Joseph Smith but there were the features, the gestures, and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham.”

Eight years later, a full thirty-three years after the original event, Hyde went even further. On second thought, it was the voice of Joseph Smith after all, and more:

“I heard the voice of Joseph through him, and it was as familiar to me as the voice of my wife, the voice of my child, or the voice of my father. And not only the voice of Joseph did I distinctly and unmistakably hear, but I saw the very gestures of his person, the very features of his countenance, and if I mistake not, the very size of his person appeared on the stand. And it went through me with the thrill of conviction that Brigham was the man to lead this people. And from that day to the present there has not been a query or a doubt upon my mind with regard to the divinity of his appointment; I know that he was the man selected of God to fill the position he now holds.”

There’s just one problem with Orson Hyde’s testimony. He wasn’t there. Orson Hyde did not arrive in Nauvoo until August 13th.

Other prominent Mormons who weren’t present added their testimonies too. John D. Lee’s personal diary, Van Wagoner tells us, “makes it clear that he did not return to Nauvoo until 20 August, nearly two weeks later.” But that didn’t stop Lee from later saying “I myself, at the time, imagined that I saw and heard a strong resemblance to the Prophet in him.” Wilford Woodruff told the story from the pulpit many times over the years, embellishing it more than any of the others with each retelling. Interestingly, Woodruff was present that day and had written the most detailed and complete contemporary account of Brigham’s speech on the day he gave it. But in that original account he failed to mention any of the supernatural sights and sounds he miraculously recalled years later.

If the church leadership were inclined to exaggerate, the rank and file were up to the challenge too. According to Van Wagoner:

“Retrospective retellings of a ‘transfiguration,’ in a variety of forms, can be found in dozens of sources, yet no two seem to agree on precise details. Elizabeth Haven Barlow, a cousin of Brigham Young, for example, wrote that her mother told her that ‘thousands in that assembly’ saw Young ‘take on the form of Joseph Smith and heard his voice change to that of the Prophet’s.’ Eliza Ann Perry Benson reminisced that the Saints arose ‘from their seats enmass’ exclaiming ‘Joseph has come! He is here!’”

Too bad the newspapers neglected to notice the crowd going wild. It would have made good copy.

Thankfully, not every member of the church got caught up in the collective delusion. According to Van Wagoner:

Bishop George Miller, present at the gathering, later recalled that nothing supernatural had occurred on that day. Young made a “long and loud harangue,” Miller later wrote, for which I “could not see any point in the course of his remarks than to overturn Sidney Rigdon’s pretensions.”

Why It Matters, And Why It Doesn’t

Just as 19th century historian George Bancroft believed there was nothing wrong with fabricating and reshaping the facts as long as the resulting stories “would make his readers proud of their country’s history”, so did 19th century Mormons profess to fudging the facts if it led to promoting the faith. But such Mormon urban legends have a way of backfiring. Rather than strengthening testimonies, once the deception is revealed, testimonies are often destroyed. Witness the hordes of good and faithful people leaving the church in droves every year after discovering their testimonies were dependent on deeply held beliefs that had been manipulated by those they trusted most.

Nearly a hundred years ago B.H. Roberts was already concerned about this trend:

“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods; what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies?”

Whack-a-Mole Wives

Members and ex-members alike deserve to take an objective look at the women who started popping up in late nineteenth century Utah claiming to have once been secretly married to Joseph Smith. We deserve to carefully analyze their claims one by one, and that’s just the kind of research Richard and Pamela Price have been engaged in for over thirty years.

Are these tales of secret marriages not that much different from tales of miraculous transfigurations, thought to aid in affirming the glorious doctrines of The Lord’s True Church? If an apostle could claim to witness a miracle he did not see, is it not conceivable that a woman might claim a marriage she did not experience? Did any of these women come forward earlier than the late 1870′s? Do we have any contemporary accounts of their secret marriages written in their diaries at the time they supposedly took place? Why don’t we hear anything of this until these women were well past middle age and the practice of plural marriage was under attack? Anyone could have claimed to have been married to Joseph Smith, since the marriages were alleged to have been secret and no marriage certificates exist. One wife would not even have known about any of the others. “You were married to Joseph Smith? No kidding! I was married to Joseph Smith!

“Well, howdy-do and pleased ta meetcha!”

All of these dubious claims were made by women who were firm believers in The Principle, having lived their entire adult lives as plural wives, nearly all of them to men of prominence in Utah society. They were absolutely convinced that the doctrine was introduced by Joseph, so a little exaggeration to affirm the legitimacy of the practice couldn’t hurt. Doubtless some of these gals may have come to believe Joseph Smith actually would have married them for real if he had actually met them.

Let’s take a quick look at just a couple of cases of women who have been presented to me as proof positive, absolutely-airtight-smoking-gun-evidence that Joseph Smith was a sex-obsessed Lothario.

The Smoking Gun Is A Toy Cap Pistol

1. Nancy Rigdon

Nancy Rigdon was the pretty nineteen year old daughter of First Councilor Sidney Rigdon, and the way the story is often told, Joseph Smith made advances toward her in a letter and she rejected him.

In volume II of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, the Prices examine this story in depth and document all the juicy details. You can read the complete analysis on their website here . I’ll give you the short version.

A letter was delivered to Miss Rigdon which she was told was from Joseph Smith. The letter did not contain Joseph’s signature, and Miss Rigdon rejected it because she knew where it had come from. She suspected it was the work of John C. Bennett, who held incriminating knowledge about her seduction by Chauncey Higbee and hoped for her cooperation in entrapping Joseph. What ended up happening to the poor girl was that her affair with Higbee was made public, causing her no end of humiliation.

Wouldn’t you know it, Bennett somehow had a copy of that letter to Nancy Rigdon of his own, which he published in the Sangamo Journal, and later in his book, claiming it was written by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon. Gee, I wonder how he got that copy?

Joseph Smith made affidavit denying authorship of the letter, and Nancy Rigdon herself affirmed it had not come from Smith, “nor in his hand writing, but by another person, and in another person’s hand writing.” Nancy’s father didn’t believe the letter was from Joseph either. Neither copy of the notorious letter has been found to this day. All we know of it is from what Bennett published.

Some smoking gun.

2. Helen Mar Kimball

I suppose if we came across the diary of an innocent fourteen year old girl expressing horrified apprehension about her upcoming wedding to Joseph Smith, a grown man in his mid thirties, that would be pretty damning evidence, wouldn’t it?

That’s how the journal of Helen Mar Kimball is often presented. But the journal was written by Helen when she was nearly fifty and had been one of the plural wives of Orson F. Whitney her entire adult life. Helen tells a retrospective tale of desiring to be obedient to her father who wished her to be given to the Prophet to wife. The actual purpose of her story was to bolster support for the practice of plural marriage, to which she was a devoted acolyte.

Far from being the private diary of a frightened underage girl, this was a story Helen composed in the late 1870′s which she wrote for publication. Her story has all the earmarks of the type of fabricated “history” created to build testimonies among those who may have come to question the doctrine of plural marriage. Her conclusion was that plural marriage was wonderful. She was in with both feet. Why, she even had the privilege of being married at one time to the living Prophet himself, that’s how super-duper the whole thing was.

“I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle,” she testified, “and saw… the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord’s anointed.”

Helen makes it clear in an accompanying poem that her marriage to Joseph was for eternity only. That is, the marriage was never consummated. This is a typical caveat of the women who came forward with these claims. They seemed to enjoy the status of an eternal marriage to the famous founder of their faith, but most were careful to make the point that there was never any hanky-panky going on. Joseph would claim them as his celestial mates later in the hereafter. They even had themselves sealed “again” to Joseph in the Utah temple in case anybody didn’t believe them.

Those who insist that Joseph Smith was a sex-obsessed letch scoring dozens of clandestine conquests at Nauvoo will have to explain to me how the biggest celebrity in the city, during the busiest time of his life and with everyone’s eyes constantly watching his every move, would be able to woo, court, and wed two to three women every month. And then explain to me this unusual talent he had for constantly picking ladies who refused to put out.

Helen Mar Kimball’s purpose in writing her tract was to help bolster support for “The Principle” at a time when it was coming under attack from outside the church and generating questions inside. Like anyone else of her generation and in her position, when it suited her purpose, she fabricated. She didn’t write what she did because she was fishing for sympathy, she was trolling for converts.

Art or Science?

Today the study of history is a social science, no longer the malleable “art” that it was prior to the twentieth century. So perhaps it’s time Mormons as well as ex-Mormons applied the scientific process when trying to determine whether Joseph Smith was being honest in his denunciation of polygamy, or whether he was a flaming hypocrite.

“Occam’s Razor” is the scientific principle embodied in the statement that “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.” Perhaps Fawn Brodie’s frustrated bewilderment at the conflicting evidence tying Joseph Smith to plural marriage was simply a result of her having been raised in the church (as were most subsequent Joseph Smith biographers) and accepted as a “given” that the doctrine of polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. Was she predisposed to ignore the simplest explanation?

How many of us have ever thought to check the provenance of D&C 132? Haven’t we always just assumed that it was written in Joseph’s hand? We unquestioningly accept as truth what has been handed down to us from people whose own recollections of key events changed radically depending upon the lesson they wished to convey, and who lived in a time when even the professional historians were no sticklers for accuracy.

After weighing all the evidence in any historical controversy, the best we can conclude about any given event is that it was more likely to have happened one way, and less likely to have happened another. Important factors to consider are primary and contemporary accounts (accounts written at the time), versus secondary accounts, hearsay, and later recollections.

So here’s what it comes down to. On the one hand we have countless contemporary accounts in Joseph’s own words testifying of his incessant crusade to root out polygamy in the church and his threats to prosecute its practitioners. On the other hand we have scribes as early as 1847 testifying to their complicity in tampering with the dead man’s journals, along with an entire gallery of pinch-faced dowagers appearing from out of nowhere with a claim to fame for their secret weddings to a long dead super-celebrity.

Taking Joseph Smith at his word and approaching the later claims as hyperbole typical of the zeitgeist is the only way to make sense of all the contradictions. It’s the only way the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. No one really knows the truth about what happened back then. I wouldn’t pretend to. I’ve only read half of the revisionist history on the topic, and I’m told there’s much more yet to be made available. But if I were to offer an early opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen so far, I would have to say that it seems more likely that Joseph Smith was sincere about eradicating polygamy in the church; and given what we know about the 19th century proclivity for embellishing reality without shame as long as it was for a good cause, I’d have to conclude that it’s less likely that we can rely on the claims of Joseph Smith’s several “wives”.

I don’t quite understand this reluctance some people have -both believing Mormons as well as others raised in the parochial Mormon culture- to automatically reject new information that might force a paradigm shift in their thinking. I like how B.H. Roberts looked at it: “I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.”

I actually like discovering I might have been wrong about something. It’s kind of exhilarating. It tells me I’m still learning.

First, let’s clarify the terms:

• Nature Religions are based on the premise that nature is benevolent (even human nature) and that mankind should strive to be in harmony with nature.  These religions usually emerge when the religious community is tied to a geographic location (e.g. islanders or others who cultivate the land).  Often these religions have a female deity because the whole world is the body of the goddess.
• Social Religions are based on the idea that nature is evil and must be controlled.  The means to control nature is through “magic” (we would say Priesthood in our religious tradition).  These religions usually emerge when a religious community is nomadic (e.g. wandering in the desert for 40 years, trekking across the plains).  In these religions, God is separate from nature, and nature is condemned by God.  Often these are religions with a male deity because the female represents life and nature – the source of all life – while the male is elsewhere.

What happens when a Social Religion meets a Nature Religion?  Usually, the social religion tries to control the “pagans.”

Joseph Campbell described:  A local jungle native said to a missionary:  “Your god keeps himself shut up in a house as if he were old and infirm.  Ours is in the forest and in the fields and on the mountains when the rain comes.”

“In the Bible we are told that we are the masters.  For hunting people the animal is in many ways the superior.”  ~Joseph Campbell

“In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come.”  ~Bill Moyer

“The ancient myths were designed to harmonize the mind and the body.  The mind can ramble off in strange ways and want things that the body does not want.  The myths and rites were means of putting the mind in accord with the body and the way of life in accord with the way that nature dictates.”  ~Joseph Campbell

During OT times, there were many nature cults in which you would go to a grove to commune with diety.  These groups were condemned by the Hebrews who had a temple-bound (or mountain-bound at times) god, and both groups were constantly at war.

Clearly, as a Christian religion, Mormonism has facets of a Social Religion (anti-nature):

1. The pioneer trek & Zion’s camp were examples of attempts to recreate the nomadic culture of the ancient Hebrews.  These types of cultures require subjugation of nature to ensure one’s very survival.
2. Priesthood is sometimes described as the power to control nature, even to command the mountains to move.
3. Male deity is generally associated with anti-nature, social religions.  However, the caveat to this is below.
4. Sin, the idea that man’s nature is fallen.  Again, this is a Christian concept, so not unique to Mormonism.

So, what are some evidences that Mormonism (as a restorationist movement) has components of nature religion:

1. Female deity.  Although there is little to no discussion any more of our Heavenly Mother, the fact that we acknowledged God to have an equal female partner is an interesting restored concept and adds balance to the male-dominated deity.
2. Theosis.  The idea that we are Gods in embryo capable of becoming Gods.  Certainly this ennobles our human nature.
3. Corporeal resurrection.  Although some religions have this in common, Mormonism is somewhat unique in defining the resurrected body as part of the soul (not just the spirit).  This contradicts the idea that our bodies are inherently sinful and weak.
4. Second estate.  This is the idea that gaining a body is superior to a purely spiritual existence (like Satan & co).  Again, many religions elevate the spiritual over the physical.  We do the reverse.
5. Eve’s choice.  Unlike many other Christian religions, our interpretation of the fall is that Eve made the better choice; she chose life and progeny (nature) over obeying the rules.  And if she had not, we wouldn’t be here.  However, the caveat to this is the notion that she was punished.  The question is whether her punishment was a punishment or a natural condition.

There are some other key links between Mormonism and nature religions.  Some of these links are very Mormon, others are common to Christianity:

1. Sacred groves. Sacred groves were most prominent in the Ancient Near East and prehistoric Europe, but feature in various cultures throughout the world. They were important features of the mythological landscape and cult practice of Celtic, Germanic, ancient Greek, Near Eastern, Roman, and Slavic polytheism, and were also used in India, Japan, and West Africa. Examples of sacred groves include the Greco-Roman temenos, the Norse hörgr, and the Celtic nemeton, which was largely but not exclusively associated with Druidic practice. During the time of Christianisation of Estonia by German invaders starting in 12th century there was a common practice of building churches on the sites of sacred groves.  Mormon mythical connection: Duh, when JS didn’t find God in the local churches (man-made buildings), he found Him in a grove of trees near his home.  Chalk one up for nature!
2. The “Mountain” of the Lord.  Almost all religions have some sacred mountains – either holy themselves (like Mount Olympus in Greek mythology) or related to famous events (like Mount Sinai in Judaism and descendant religions). In some cases the sacred mountain is purely mythical, like the Peak of Hara in Zoroastrianism. Volcanos were also considered as sacred mountains, such as Mount Etna in Italy, which was believed to be the home of Vulcan the Roman god of fire.  Mormon mythical connection:  The temple is referred to as the “mountain of the Lord”; when the Hebrews couldn’t build a man-made temple, they built tabernacles.  When they couldn’t build tabernacles, they went into a high mountain to commune with God.  The trek to the Rocky Mountains makes this one stand out.  Their man-made temple was destroyed in Nauvoo, so where did they head?  Once again, to the mountains.  Nature wins again!  (Of course, then they built another man-made temple, but it sure took a long time).
3. The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning.  Worship or deification of fire (also pyrodulia, pyrolatry or pyrolatria) is known from various religions. As fire has also destructive capabilities, the worshipping of fire is necessarily ambiguous. This is indicated in proverbs such as “Fire is a good servant but a bad master”.  Mormon mythical connection:  While there are some fire / God connections we share with other faiths (burning bush, Israelites following God who was a pillar of fire) in Mormonism, God is described as dwelling in everlasting burnings.  D&C 110: 3 says:  “His ^aeyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his ^bcountenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his ^cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of ^dJehovah.”  Sounds like a God of fire to me.  Another one for nature!
4. And the star nearest to God is called Kolob.  Astrolatry refers to the worship of stars and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. The most common instances of this are sun gods and moon gods in polytheistic systems worldwide. Also notable is the association of the planets with deities in Babylonian, and hence in Greco-Roman religion, viz. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.   The term astro-theology is used in the context of 18th to 19th century scholarship aiming at the discovery of the original religion, particularly primitive monotheism. In contradistinction to astrolatry, which unambiguously implies a polytheism frowned upon as idolatrous by Christian authors since Eusebius, astrotheology is any “religious system founded upon the observation of the heavens.  Mormon mythical connection:  Well, this certainly sounds like the Book of Abraham to me!

So, what do you think?  Is Mormonism a nature religion or a social religion or something in between?  Has it changed over time?  Discuss.

Guest Post by Christopher C. Smith

Chris has a BA from Fresno Pacific University in Biblical Studies, an MA from Wheaton College in History of Christianity, and is pursuing a PhD from Claremont Graduate University in Religions in North America. In the tradition of Jan Shipps, he is a non-Mormon with a particular focus on Mormon Studies and Joseph Smith.

The Book of Mormon records in 2 Nephi 3 a very interesting prophecy attributed to the biblical patriarch Joseph of Egypt, according to which a “choice seer” would be raised up from the fruit of Joseph’s loins in the latter days.  “And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father,” the patriarch announces.  Clearly Joseph Smith is in view.

An addendum to this prophecy adds an interesting additional promise. “I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.”  The traditional Mormon view is that the “spokesman” of the prophecy is Sidney Rigdon (see for example George Q. Cannon’s remarks in JD 25:126).  This view is based on D&C 100:9–11, which proclaims that “it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, should be a spokesman unto this people… I will give unto thee power to be mighty in expounding all scriptures, that thou mayest be a spokesman unto him.”  I would like to suggest, however, that a better candidate for the spokesman of the “choice seer” prophecy is Oliver Cowdery.

Note that whereas the D&C emphasizes Sidney’s preaching role, the prophecy itself emphasizes writing.  In fact, the roles of Smith and his spokesman are precisely the reverse of Moses and Aaron.  The prophecy says of Moses, “I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.”  Whereas Moses needed a spokesman for speaking but not for writing, Joseph Smith evidently needed a spokesman for writing but not for speaking.  The reference to a rod is also suggestive.  Unlike Moses, Joseph Smith did not have “power in a rod.”  But if the roles of seer and spokesman are reversed, then we might surmise that his spokesman did.  And in fact, that is precisely what the D&C says of Oliver Cowdery.

Oliver Cowdery served as Joseph Smith’s principal scribe for the Book of Mormon and some early sections of the D&C.  Of all Smith’s associates, Cowdery was the most prominent in the early period.  D&C 28 specifically likens him to Aaron, and tasks him not only to write but also to “speak”, “preach”, and “declare faithfully the commandments and revelations” (D&C 28:3–8). Cowdery apparently sometimes made use of a divining rod, which the 1835 D&C describes as a “rod of Aaron”.  He even received revelations of his own (EMD 2:409; 1835 Pat. Blessing Book), and did much of the early preaching and baptizing.  But here’s the unambiguous kicker.  In Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing—given in 1835 by Joseph Smith, Jr. himself—there is a reference to “the prophecy of Joseph, in ancient days,” which pronounced blessings upon “the Seer of the last days and the Scribe that should sit with him.” Clearly the choice seer’s “Scribe” is here supposed to be Cowdery.

So what are we to do with the D&C’s application of the spokesman label to Sidney Rigdon?  Like Oliver, Sidney served as a spokesman for the prophet in both written and oral capacities.  Sidney had started as the prophet’s scribe.  In fact, when Joseph met Sidney in 1831, Sidney was specifically instructed to preach only “inasmuch as ye do not write [for the prophet]” (35:20–23). But by 1833 he had taken on a much larger role in the movement, and his role as “spokesman” was primarily a preaching and teaching role.  Clearly Sidney did serve as a spokesman for Joseph Smith.  But was he the spokesman of prophecy?

One possible reading of these sources is that by 1835 Joseph Smith had bifurcated the “spokesman” role of Joseph of Egypt’s prophecy into oral and written components, such that Rigdon was the “spokesman”, and an additional role of “Scribe” was created to accommodate the displaced Oliver Cowdery.  But there is another possible reading as well.  Perhaps the spokesman was never intended to be a single, unchangeable individual, but rather referred to a role or office that might be filled by multiple individuals simultaneously or in succession.  A capital “S” is used in the prophet’s journal when calling Warren Parrish his “Scribe”, as well, suggesting perhaps that he saw Parrish as filling the same eschatological role that just a few months prior had been assigned to Oliver Cowdery.  Smith in fact enlisted many talented scribes over the course of his life, selecting for the role some of the Church’s most talented and educated men.  He never felt constrained to limit himself to a single individual.  He had a whole cadre of spokesmen, some of whom moved in and out of the role as their fortunes and the Church’s changed.

I’m interested to hear how the commenters here at MM read this evidence.  How are we to reconcile D&C 100 with Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing?  Was the spokesman a person, or an office?  If it was a person, then who?  Cowdery?  Rigdon?  Or someone else entirely?

I recently read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. One of the interesting realities on which Ehrman elaborates is that early Christianity was anything but homogeneous. More specifically, there were many factions, some heterodox, some orthodox, some in the middle. Some of the books of the apocrypha, gnostic texts, and other early Christian writings seemed to support various theological ideas not represented, and in fact, even repressed in what became the canonized New Testament.

A few of particular interest are adoptionist (Christians that thought Jesus was fully mortal), docetic (Christians who thought Jesus was only divine and merely “appeared” to be human), and separationist (Christians who thought Jesus was two separate beings, one Jesus (human) and one Christ (divine)). There were many other heretical ideas that various Christian groups espoused. Some parts of our canonized New Testament were intentionally modified to suppress these views.

Translations in Mormonism

In Mormonism we have a very strange use of the word “translation.” Joseph “translated” the golden plates to produce The Book of Mormon. He “translated” some egyptian scrolls to produce the book of Abraham. In each of these instances I think that “translation” is probably a bit misleading. “Divined,” or “revealed,” perhaps, but “translated” in our modern colloquial usage is quite a stretch in my opinion!

To me, “translation” as it relates to Joseph’s work with the Bible, seems to imply that Joseph was a textual critic, much like Ehrman. That is to say, his goal, like a textual critic, would have been to correct the errors in translation and copying to return the scriptures to their original form. The 8th Article of Faith further gives weight to the idea that Joseph would have been interested correcting the translation, as it was the thing that had errors (as opposed to the original manuscripts themselves).

Yet, it is reasonable to me to question whether or not the original manuscripts of the canonized New Testament actually contained accurate teachings of Jesus. Surely if there were many different theologies, all of which claimed to be Christian, differing radically in their implications for modern Christian understanding, is it safe to assume that the books that “made it” into the canon even represent Jesus’ teachings? What of the process that came to finally accept a “canon” of scriptures? It was a process of gradual (read: hundreds of years) consensus among orthodox Christians (read: the Roman Catholic church), culminating finally in the Council of Trent in the 1500′s! Is this really what we now authoritatively accept as Jesus’ teachings and doctrines? And if Joseph’s goal, as translator, was to revert the text to the original, have we really made much progress in understanding the true Gospel as Christ taught?

Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Fortunately, as I’m sure many of you are silently screaming about, I think the Joseph Smith “Translation” is, again, a misnomer. It seems to me that Joseph had no business being a textual critic (despite being rather schooled in the Bible), and in fact, I don’t think this was Joseph’s goal at all. A casual glance at the Wikipedia article on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible indicates that Joseph seemed to be using the Bible as an impetus for revelation. From that article, Philip Barlow thinks there are six different types of changes in the JST:

• Long revealed additions having no Biblical parallel (including visions of Moses, Enoch, and passages on Melchizedek).
• “Common Sense” changes.
• “Interpretive additions” often signaled by the phrase “or in other words.”
• “Harmonization” in which Joseph reconciled seemingly conflicting passages.
• Grammatical improvements.
• Unclassifiable changes.

I think this is a fair list, but I would add to it. I think the Doctrine and Covenants is a form of the JST. That is to say, Joseph was not a textual critic, and the JST is not a translation at all. It is a series of revelations that hoped to obtain what should have been in the Bible. I think Joseph was interested in discovering, through revelation, the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ, not in a restoration of the words of the original manuscript of the books that make up our canon.

In this vein, I am completely baffled as to why the LDS church does not adopt the JST and why we don’t rely more on Joseph’s revelations, and less on the Bible. I would even go so far as to argue that Mormonism shouldn’t even really care about the translational accuracy of the Bible. Between The Book of Mormon, D&C, and modern revelation, it seems we have a rich, full theology, that are Christian in their own right!

JST in the LDS Church

The JST manuscripts were preserved by Emma Smith after Joseph’s death. As a result, the then Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ church) published and copyrighted the JST in 1867. The LDS church had only a partial collection of the JST manuscripts.  Ostensibly the LDS church was unable to verify, independently, whether or not the compilation of the JST by the RLDS church was indeed accurate and, possibly, to avoid simply accepting the JST as espoused by the RLDS church (relations have not always been good), perhaps the LDS church just used what it had. That copyright has long since expired, and as recently as 2004 the LDS church, with full support from the Community of Christ church, produced a full facsimile of all the original manuscripts. So why not adopt it now? Here are some possible reasons why we have not adopted the JST:

• Tradishuuuuuun, tradishun! Yep, the LDS church is very slow to part with tradition. As we have officially used the KJV (with a few additions) for many years, and have gone to great lengths to print it and bind it, and have incorporated it into many lesson manuals, perhaps we are just sluggish to change.
• Perhaps we are afraid of the label “Joseph Smith Translation.” We already know that “translation” as used in other contexts is a stretch, so maybe we’re nervous about adopting another, possibly erroneous “translation.”
• Maybe there is some interest in differentiating ourselves from the CoC church. After all, from an LDS perspective, it would be easy to view the CoC church as having gone astray. If we adopt their book, who knows what will happen.
• There may be changes in the full JST that cast doubt on LDS church policies, procedures, rules, revelations, culture, etc. (I have not read the full JST so this may be a stretch).
• Doctrinal salmagundi was the modus operandi in Joseph’s day, but today’s church is quite sensitive to new, unprecendented doctrine and/or changes. We seem to be moving toward mainstream Christianity, and adopting the JST might send us in the other direction.

So what do you think? Was the JST really a “translation” in the sense that Joseph was trying to restore the text to the original, and is this even a useful thing to do for Mormonism? Or was Joseph really more interested in getting to what he believed Jesus actually taught? Why do you think the LDS church has not adopted the JST?

Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”

• polygamy
• priesthood ban
• historical issues / MMM / Joseph Smith / BOM historicity / BOA / restoration detail discrepancies

• experiences they’ve had as a detective since that case have given them new perspective
• new evidence has emerged.  For example, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence (and other forensic sciences) have changed substantially over the last decade, casting new light on old crimes.
• similarities to subsequent crimes can change the overall understanding of the case
• evidence relating to witnesses or suspects or even victims can emerge or change over time

So, this analogy works better for me, but also puts these issues in the realm of “hobby” in my mind.  These are issues that are a curiosity, something fun to explore, and while they are personally important to the individual, they may or may not be “solvable” or “conclusive” cases.  We just have to make a decision based on the evidence we have, or move on and revisit them later.  Once you’ve made a decision on a case, right or wrong, you tend to move on past it and work on another issue.

Does the “cold case” analogy work for you?  What are your cold cases?  Are there cold cases you’ve ultimately solved to your satisfaction or do you hang onto them and mull them over again every so often?  Discuss.

Each filmmaker who undertakes telling his story by dramatic medium is faced with the challenge of finding a suitable actor to play the part of the prophet; to cast Joseph Smith.

Many actors have played the part of Joseph, some more convincingly than others.  I’ve compiled a photographic list of many of these actors, so their semblance can be compared side-by-side.  This list is by no means comprehensive, but rather merely reflects my limited abilities to acquire screen shots of the productions in question.

Note: Due to the practice of generally leaving church productions uncredited, some of these actors have not been identified by name.  If you know any of this missing information, please share.

Young Joseph

	Stewart Petersen Film(s) [1976] The First Vision
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1999] Seminary / Sunday School Video Presentations
	Dustin Harding Film(s) [2003] The Book of Mormon Movie [2004] The Restoration DVD [2005] Praise to the Man
	Nick Whitaker Film(s) [2005] Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration

Adult Joseph

	Vincent Price Film(s) [1940] Brigham Young
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1968] The Three Witnesses
	Greg Sperry Film(s) [1982] Restoration of the Priesthood
	Mark Deakins Film(s) [1988] The Heavens are Open Note: Mark Deakins also played the part of Jesus Christ in The Lamb of God.
	Tim Gail (thanks Justin!) Film(s) [1990] Legacy
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1993] Mountain of the Lord
	Scott McMillan Film(s) [1994] Rockwell
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1999] Seminary / Sunday School Video Presentations
	Nathan Mitchell Film(s) [2004] The Restoration [2005] Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration [2008] Emma Smith: My Story
	Jonathan Scarfe Film(s) [2004] The Work and the Glory [2005] The Work and the Glory II: American Zion [2006] The Work and the Glory III: A House Divided
	Dean Cain Film(s) [2006] September Dawn

Some other noteworthy actors who’s image was not available include:

• Mark Peckham
  [1999] American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith
• Richard Dutcher
  [1997] Eliza and I
• Richard Moll
  [1977] Brigham
  [1983] Savage Journey
• David Westberg
  [1974] The Lost Manuscript
• Joel Bishop
  [1997] Fourth Witness: The Mary Whitmer Story

Of special interest, rumor had it that Val Kilmer was slated to play Joseph in Richard Dutcher’s planned production of the the Joseph Smith story.  It never happened, but Val might still be up for the part should someone else give him the chance…

So what do you think about these actors?  Do you have any favorites?  Any you can’t stand?  What makes a ‘good’ Joseph Smith?  What ruins it?  Discuss.

I recently read a biography of Muhammad “Muhammad, A Prophet For Our Time” by Karen Armstrong. It was a fascinating read and I learned a great deal about this ancient prophet.

I must admit that most of my thoughts while reading the book revolved around the parallels to Joseph Smith and the early saints. Frankly, I find the similarities startling in one sense, and yet unsurprising in another. On the one hand, the similarities feel so extraordinary to me that I cannot understand how I could possibly believe in Joseph Smith’s story and reject Muhammad’s (or truthfully that I never even gave it a chance). On the other hand, this is the story of the mystics and visionaries of the world. Their methods, works, books, and revelations are very similar and the truths they bring forth have striking similarities.

Here is a list of similarities that I found while reading this biography.

1. Muhammad, like Joseph Smith did not seem to necessarily ask for the role he eventually took on. Their journeys initiated with simple questions, desires, and events that seem ordinary, but resulted in the extraordinary. In both scenarios, these men seemed to be rather surprised by their visions and revelations.
2. Both men brought forth inspired books given to them by an angel. Many claim that the Qur’an could be nothing if not divine based entirely on the language alone. This does not sound too unlike Joseph’s claim of The Book of Mormon being “the most correct book on earth.” One difference, however, is that Muhammad did seem to recognize more fully the importance of the Qur’an. In other words, the Qur’an was what defined Islam, as it was a compilation of the revelations Muhammad had received (not unlike the Doctrine and Covenants). Joseph, on the other hand, didn’t seem to put quite as much emphasis on The Book of Mormon, almost to the point where one has to wonder whether Joseph really understood what was in The Book of Mormon and the impact it would have. On the other hand, Joseph, like Muhammad, did seem to put a large emphasis on his revelations.
3. Both Joseph and Muhammad seemed to slowly grow into their calling. In Mormonism, I find there are many people who ostensibly think that Joseph knew what he was doing from the get-go. In fact, revelations to both men came at spontaneous times and left the men wondering how to enact, or implement the revelation. They had to learn and grow in wisdom and understanding as pieces of their theology came to them. In short, both prophets learned and authored the concepts of “line upon line” within their culture.
4. Both men tell a similar tale of receiving revelation. Note the similarities between Armstrong’s characterization of Muhammad and some of the descriptions of Joseph Smith receiving revelation. Here are Armstrong’s words:
   

   Under the inspiration of Allah, Muhammad was feeling his way towards an entirely new solution, convinced that he was not speaking in his own name, but was simply repeating the revealed words of God. It was a painful, difficult process. He once said: ‘Never once did I receive a revelation without thinking that my soul had been torn away from me.’ Sometimes the message was clear. He could almost see and hear Gabriel distinctly. The words seemed to ‘come down’ to him, like a shower of life-giving rain. But often the divine voice was muffled and obscure: ‘Sometimes it comes unto me like the reverberations of a bell, and that is the hardest upon me; the reverberations abate when I am aware of their message.’ He had to listen to the undercurrent of events, trying to discover what was really going on. He would grow pale with the effort and cover himself with his cloak, as if to shield himself from the divine impact. He would perspire heavily, even on a cold day, as he turned inwards, searching his soul for a solution to a problem, in rather the same way as a poet has to open himself to the words that he must haul from the depths of himself to the conscious level of his mind. In the Qur’an, God instructed Muhammad to listen intently to each revelation as it emerged; he must be careful not to impose a meaning on a verse prematurely, before its full significance had become entirely clear.” – pp. 56 – 57

5. Both Joseph and Muhammad became generals (basically). While Muhammad was certainly more violent in achieving his goals, both men resorted to militias and violence to retain their rights of freedom to worship. Additionally, I think that Muhammad’s increased use of violence was primarily a product of his time and culture. It was not uncommon to raid camps, caravans, and cities merely to prove a point and gain favor with a certain tribe. In all fairness, Joseph’s violence was most often in self-defense, whereas Muhammad was clearly on the offensive at times.
6. Both men worked fervently against their culture to bring to pass their ideals. In other words, both men seemed to be ahead of their time socially, and culturally, and dreamed of a society that many resisted. In fact, these utopian societies had similarities. Both dreamed of a society in which divisions between classes were blurred, or removed, where universal human rights were respected. Both wanted all things to be equal, and for there to be peace and harmony amongst all people. In fact, the commonalities of their desired societies seem to exist among religious leaders of many times and places, including Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.
7. Both pushed against cultural norms for women and instituted polygamy as part of their respective theologies. Ironically, (depending on your point of view) both men also instituted polygamy which had a tremendous effect on the cultural norms for women. In the case of Muhammad, his treatment of his many wives set a new precedent of respect that men ought to have for their wives. And Muhammad’s primary reason for polygamy was to provide care for the numerous widows created during war. Furthermore, in the Qur’an women are revered and held up as important figures in society. Clearly Joseph instituted polygamy as well although his reasons are much less clear (depending on your point of view). Whether or not this had the same uplifting effect upon women is certainly debatable and a matter of opinion, but Joseph certainly attempted to influence the culture for women by his creation of the Relief Society with a number of powers and privileges.
8. The followers of both men were fiercely loyal, perhaps to a fault in the eyes of many. On the other hand, that seems to be what is needed in order for such religions to grow and become large movements. Both religions seemed to divide families and create intense hatred among their opponents. It seems to be a direct product of the brilliance of their respective leaders in combatting that hatred that allowed their ideas to progress to later stages of development and continue to the present day.
9. Both men led their followers away from their original location due to persecution (“No prophet is accepted in his own country.” Luke 4:24).
10. Both men got involved in politics and were successful. For Muhammad the politics were mostly inter-tribal, and Muhammad initially used violence (although later he used peaceful methods) to coerce the politics in Mecca and Medina to his liking. Joseph was mayor of Nauvoo, and eventually even tried his hand at the presidential elections. I wonder if this similarity is caused by being the leader of a growing religious faction, or whether the two men were just so charismatic that the “shoe fit” as it were.
11. Needless to say, both men had many many attempts on their lives, as they both a large number of enemies, both politically, and within their own group. One significant difference is that Joseph’s enemies eventually did succeed in their attempts. Muhammad, in contrast, lived until an old age and died in the arms of his favorite wife.

Although theologically Islam and Mormonism are very different, the characteristics of their founders, and nature of the initial followers have striking similarities.

So what think ye readers? Why do you lend your beliefs/souls/trust/etc. to Joseph Smith’s claims and reject Muhammad’s? Or do you? Or do you believe that Muhammad only had partial light and knowledge (despite the fact that Islam and Mormonism are radically different)?

Whether dreams come from the unconscious mind or directly from God, they are valuable sources of revelation. Dreams can tell us important things about ourselves and our relationships that may remain veiled deep in the psyche if we are unskilled at interpreting the symbolic language from which they present. The great attainment of Joseph of Egypt and the message this scriptural character brings to readers of the Old Testament is the importance of developing an ability to decode symbolic dream messages and using them to integrate our conscious and subconscious knowledge.

Joseph had a huge, almost megalomaniac faith in his interpretations of dreams.  Early in his life he risked the rebuke and envy of his father and brothers to describe to them the images of the sheaves and the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him.  Later, when interpreting the dreams of the chief butler and baker, he attributed his interpretations to God, even though he had no evidence this was so.  His own dreams seemed refuted — far from bowing to him, his brothers sold him into Egypt and he had been cast into prison.  His confidence reminds me of Joseph Smith’s great intrepidity regarding his own visions:

“For I had seen a vision; I knew it and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it…”

Joseph Smith once said, after reading Foxe’s Book of the Martyrs, that he had “seen those martyrs, and they were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed, and they will be saved”  He also saw in vision marchers in Zion’s Camp who had perished from cholera in Clay County, Missouri. He encouraged the survivors of that endeavor, saying, “Brethren, I have seen those men who died of the cholera in our camp; and the Lord knows, if I get a mansion as bright as theirs, I ask no more” .  He foresaw the struggles of the Saints in crossing the plains, their establishment in the Rocky Mountains, and the future condition of the Saints.  Of these and many other spiritual manifestations he remarked, “It is my meditation all the day & more than my meat & drink to know how I shall make the saints of God to comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge, before my mind.”

Joseph of Egypt had this same certainty regarding communications from God through the medium of dreams.  When finally brought before Pharoah, he reiterated his assertion that certain dreams are communications from the Divine:

“And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharoah twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.”

This assurance seems incredible when taken into account that his own early dream had also been repeated twice but not yet brought to pass.

Today we have varying degrees of confidence in the interpretation of our own spiritual experiences.  Some are unimpressed by the fleeting images that pass through their minds in a somnolent state.  But others become adept at the language of symbolism.  They confidently assign meanings to everything from dreams to emotional impressions, and use these to order their actions and their lives.  Psychologists have noted that people tend to dream in images that are familiar to them in their culture.  For example, Native Americans may dream about the spirits of animals and the world of nature, Catholics envision the Virgin Mary, Mormons have visitations involving the temple and their dead ancestors.  This can facilitate dream interpretation, but it can also obscure it, because the images are so familiar that we don’t look deeply at the meaning behind the symbol.  In our modern world, we have emphasized the logical mind so much that we have lost the sensitivity to understand primal and pictoral forms and symbols, even those with which we are well-versed.

Often our lesson manuals apply the scriptural stories to the modern audience, as was done in Lesson 11.  Here Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife is presented as an example for the righteous member to follow in avoiding moral transgression.  I am curious why, in Lesson 12, although Joseph’s dreams play a prominent part in the lesson material, the class member is not encouraged to become more adept in interpreting dreams and visions or even to pay closer attention to unconscious symbolic messages.  Moving away from the esoteric, the manual broadly associates the scriptural passage in Genesis 40-41 with “talents,” and asks:

How can we give proper acknowledgment to the Lord for our talents and gifts? (We can use them to glorify God and bless others, not for our own glory.)

In the early days of the Church Joseph Smith reprimanded some of the members for using messages from their dreams and visions improperly.  Do we fear this will happen if we freely encourage the widespread scrutiny of these types of unconscious messages?  What does this tell us about our confidence in recognizing inspiration from the Divine?

I want to explore these myths using the office of Prophet/President.  The centrality of his position hierarchically, the significant role he plays in the faith of many members of the Church and also the infrequency of contact with the general membership make this an apt example.

These myths come in many varieties.  There are stories about the Holy of Holies, about paintings of the Saviour and about mantle experiences. Now all of these may well be true, in whole or in part, or they may be completely fabricated. I am not concerned with their truth claims, rather I think that what is essential in the dynamic of these stories is the way that they become transferable between Prophets.

It is possible to trace a number of these stories (or variants of them) through many leaders, especially prophets, of the Church. This does not add to their fallacious nature rather it serves to reinforce what Bushman noted, which is that the office is endowed with charismatic gifts and not the person. Therefore it is probable, even expected, that these charismatic gifts are manifest by diverse men who hold the same office.

For example, the ‘This is the Place’ myth is re-cycled in England regularly but in a context far removed from Utah. Instead this myth focuses on the construction of the Preston Temple. Simply stated, a number sites were discussed but one site had a number of people who always resisted building permission. Yet, President Hinckley had asked for a Temple to built in Preston and when he saw the different sites he said… Yes, you guessed it. Then, though there were problems, the Temple went ahead. I am sure other similar stories abound.

My point is this, the process of re-cycling and repeating these mythic stories is one mechanism for maintaining the dynamism of a charismatic office, specifically the Prophet, in a Church where the general membership is so far removed from the individual. This is not to say that miraculous things do not happen, but these stories play an important sociological role in reinforcing this key notion that is rooted so firmly to the earliest days of the Church. These Mormon myths serve as a form of transferable charisma for an otherwise distant office.

This recording forms part of the many testimonies that are available from Wilford Woodruff concerning “the Last Charge,” a council meeting in Nauvoo where the Twelve were given authority to “bear off the kingdom,” and interpreted by President Woodruff to be the foundation of the succession policy of the Church.  Holzapfel’s announcement was that on one of the three wax cylinders upon which the recording was made, the rest of the First Presidency consisting of George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith added their witnesses that they had heard Wilford Woodruff bear his testimony.  We thus have the early voice of another president of the Church, the only recording of Cannon, and the addition of “two or three witnesses” to respond to the succession question.

I guess you’d really have to be a Mormon history afficionado to consider this information a “bombshell.”  There were a select few in the audience who were moved by the revelation, but the majority took the news calmly.  Holzapfel, in contrast, could hardly restrain himself as he built up his presentation and delivered his revelation in the final moments.  He mentioned that he had difficulty waiting the few weeks before the symposium to tell anyone this exciting news.

Interestingly, a point was mentioned in passing which grabbed my attention far more than the recording.  Apparently Holzapfel and some other historians have recently collaborated on an article discussing for the first time the fact that Sidney Rigdon was not present in the morning meetings at the Nauvoo Temple on March 26, 1844, when the Last Charge was given.  This is stunningly important to Mormon history, because it implies that Rigdon was not given the same keys that the rest of the Twelve received at that time.  Not only did he lack the right to succession, but he may not have understood the pattern Joseph presented that day in the same way as the members of the Twelve who were present.

I’m enjoying the Symposium so far, and I’ll be back to summarize some more of the proceedings soon.

In the earliest years of Joseph’s prophethood, from Abner Cole to Eber D. Howe, critics of the Mormon prophet have pointed to his being a treasure-seer as direct evidence that Joseph was a fraud.  For modern readers, it can be difficult to imagine how anyone could honestly look into a stone and claim to see buried gold and silver.  In the twentieth century, ex-Mormon Fawn Brodie repeated that credulousness in her landmark biography No Man Knows My History—which considerably shaped the understanding of Joseph Smith for several decades—where she stated conclusively that Joseph Smith was a clear impostor as a treasure-seer and that his prophetic identity evolved as the natural next step.

For most the nineteenth and twentieth century, Latter-day Saint historians have been reluctant to admit that the Smith family was ever deeply involved in treasure-seeking.  That seemed to change in the decades surrounding the production and publication of the Hoffman forgeries in the early 1980s which caused many LDS historians to seriously rethink the story of Joseph’s teenage years.  Originally considered legitimate, two of the forgeries were letters—one from Joseph Smith and another from Martin Harris—which implicated the young prophet as a treasure-seer in Palmyra.

Although the letters were later exposed as forgeries, the damage had been done.  Latter-day Saint historians, it seemed, were more willing to admit that Joseph Smith utilized his seer-stone in the search for buried treasure.  The consensus shifted, but scholars still argued over the implications.  Were Abner Cole, Eber Howe, and Fawn Brodie right that Joseph deceived people using the stone?  Or is it possible that Joseph and other early nineteenth-century treasure-seers were sincere in their belief that they could find treasure through occult means?

Brodie in her biography accused Joseph of being a fraud based at least partly on the statements of neighbors in the Hurlbutt affidavits, most of which portrayed his treasure-seeking in a negative light.  However several of the men who signed these affidavits were treasure-seekers themselves—one, Willard Chase, was a respected Methodist class leader.  Richard L. Anderson has demonstrated that the affidavits show much influence from their collector, Mormon apostate Philastus Hurlbut.  Brodie (and other scholars and critics of Joseph Smith over the last two centuries) has given these clearly prejudiced—and possibly doctored—affidavits too much credence when using them to show that Joseph Smith was a fraud as a seer.

Although of course there were exceptions, many treasure-seekers—including the seers—were honest people who sincerely believed they could find buried Indian or Spanish treasure in the earth.  Treasure-seeking was enormously popular in the Northeast during the Second Great Awakening, and many treasure-seekers were deeply religious.  As mentioned, Palmyra’s Willard Chase led Methodist class meetings.  The New Israelite community led by Nathaniel Wood in Vermont made treasure-seeking through divining rods a key part of their worship and believed the ability was a spiritual gift.  In 1826, Joseph Smith was brought to court as “a disorderly person” and “impostor” by one of the relatives of Josiah Stowell, who had hired him to aid in a search for a Spanish silver mine.  At the trial, Joseph Smith, Sr. testified and was reported to have said that he and his son “were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre.”  Many people in the region saw this ability as a gift from God.  Treasure-seeking did not—in their minds—conflict with orthodox religion.  An honest, hard-working, pious Christian could go on a treasure-hunt—led by either a seer using a stone or a divining rod—without ever considering that the the activity might somehow be antithetical to his religion.

As a spiritual gift, treasure-seeking was actually intricately connected with religion.  Non-Mormon historian Alan Taylor writes of early America as “a context where treasure-seekers were neither fools nor deceivers, where treasure-seeking was part of an attempt to recapture the simplicity and magical power associated with apostolic Christianity.”  Despite the materialistic nature of treasure-seeking, it was also a spiritual search.  The Second Great Awakening that spurred the same revivals that enticed young Joseph Smith to search for the correct church also enticed him to embrace the supernatural in his ability as a treasure-seer.

Is it possible for Latter-day Saints to retain their view of the Prophet of the Restoration as God’s anointed servant and simultaneously understand his treasure-seeking activities as a young man?  Can we see him the same when we realize that during the years after he had his First Vision and in the middle of his yearly interviews with Moroni, he was peering into a seer-stone at night to direct a band of men in the search for buried gold?  Of course we can.  Perhaps part of the struggle comes from our thinking that he immediately understood his prophetic future in 1820, when in reality he was still trying to grasp it as late as the 1829.  Joseph later understood that his future was not in searching for earthly treasures; according to Martin Harris, the angel Moroni later commanded Joseph to “quit the company of the money-diggers.”  But what Latter-day Saints should realize and be thankful for is that, in many ways, treasure-seeking helped prepare the minds of the Smiths for the visions of young Joseph and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  LDS Historian Richard L. Bushman has actually called this aspect of their lives “a preparatory gospel.”

Latter-day Saints should remember that Joseph of Palmyra was not Jesus of Nazareth.  He was not immune to social, cultural, or religious pressures which inevitably shaped his person, nor should we arrogantly expect him to be.  Because we are so far separated from the culture in which he grew up, we should refrain from passing presentist judgments.  Joseph Smith was a prophet—and both he and God worked with what they had in western New York in bringing about the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Jungian dream analysis includes several underlying assumptions:

• that dreams are subjectively meaningful for the individual
• that people, objects, animals, and events in the dream are representative of the dreamer’s inner life (and not to be taken at face value or literally)
• that a proper interpretation of dreams can lead the dreamer to great self-awareness and to understanding the psychological direction of his/her life at a given time
• that some themes, events or characters in a dream are archetypal or representative of collective spirituality, not just reflective of personal meaning

So, to apply Jungian dream interpretation to the First Vision, we would consider the following elements:

People.  In Jungian perspectives, people in dreams are almost always a manifestation of a part of the person dreaming.  There are seven archetypes one may encounter in a dream:

1. The Persona is the image you present to the world in your waking life. It is your public mask. In the dream world, the persona is represented by the Self. The Self may or may not resemble you physically or may or may not behave as your would. For example, the persona can appear as a scarecrow or a beggar in your dream. However, you still know that this “person” in your dream is you.
2. The Shadow is the rejected and repressed aspects of yourself. It is the part of yourself that you do not want the world to see because it is ugly or unappealing. It symbolizes weakness, fear, or anger. In dreams, this figure is represented by a stalker, murderer, a bully, or pursuer. It can be a frightening figure or even a close friend or relative. Their appearance often makes you angry or leaves you scared. They force you to confront things that you don’t want to see or hear. You must learn to accept the shadow aspect of yourself for its messages are often for your own good, even though it may not be immediately apparent.
3. The Anima / Animus is the female and male aspects of yourself. Everyone possess both feminine and masculine qualities. In dreams, the anima appears as a highly feminized figure, while the animus appears as a hyper masculine form. Or you may dream that you are dressed in women’s clothing, if you are male or that you grow a beard, if you are female. These dream imageries appear depending on how well you are able to integrate the feminine and masculine qualities within yourself. They serve as a reminder that you must learn to acknowledge or express your masculine (be more assertive) or feminine side (be more emotional).
4. The Divine Child is your true self in its purest form. It not only symbolizes your innocence, your sense of vulnerability, and your helplessness, but it represents your aspirations and full potential. You are open to all possibilities. In the dreamscape, this figure is represented by a baby or young child.
5. The Wise Old Man /Woman is the helper in your dreams. Represented by a teacher, father, doctor, priest or some other unknown authority figure, they serve to offer guidance and words of wisdom. They appear in your dream to steer and guide you into the right direction.
6. The Great Mother is the nurturer. The Great Mother appears in your dreams as your own mother, grandmother, or other nurturing figure. She provides you with positive reassurance. Negatively, they may be depicted as a witch or old bag lady in which case they can be associated with seduction, dominance and death. This juxtaposition is rooted in the belief by some experts that the real mother who is the giver of life is also at the same time jealous of our growth away from her.
7. The Trickster, as the name implies, plays jokes to keep you from taking yourself too seriously. The trickster may appear in your dream when you have overreach or misjudge a situation. Or he could find himself in your dream when you are uncertain about a decision or about where you want to go in life. The trickster often makes you feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, sometimes mocking you or exposing you to your vulnerabilities. He may take on subtle forms, sometimes even changing its shape.

Setting.  This includes the mental state of the dreamer as well as the dream setting.

Action.  This refers to the events that occur in the dream, and the actions of the person the dreamer identifies as the self.

Objects or Symbols.  These could be archetypes (symbols common to all cultures) or symbols with unique personal significance to the dreamer.

Emotions.  These reveal information important to the interpretation of the dream.

Animals.  These represent our basest human instincts.

In considering the various accounts of the First Vision, the elements that have a Jungian significance are:  the Persona (with a possible link to the Divine Child given the age of the dreamer), the Shadow, the Wise Old Man, and consideration for setting, action, and emotions.  There are no versions in which the vision included female figures or animals, so those elements will be considered irrelevant for this analysis.

Setting.  JS was yearning for forgiveness of his sins (1832 version) and spiritual enlightenment (all versions).  He sought “wisdom” from God directly.  He was also obsessed with his personal welfare and salvation.  This setting (pre-vision) carried into the dream state.

Immediately, JS is confronted by a Shadow type.  Based on Jungian analysis, this Shadow is JS’s repressed negative side, his weaknesses and subconscious flaws.  These flaws “bind” his dream self (the Persona), making it impossible for him to move (to progress) or speak (to represent his own interests).  IOW, in order to continue to seek enlightenment, JS had to confront and overcome his own flaws that were holding him back and making any progress impossible.  (Often, dreams make funny little puns like this.  You are “wrestling with your demons” figuratively in life, so in your dream state, you do so literally).

When he is released from his Shadow side, he finds the enlightenment he seeks in the form of light and a visit from either an angelic messenger (1832) or God the Father & the son (1838).  Regardless, these are familiar archetypes for the Wise Old Man/Woman:  an authority (what bigger religious authority could he envision?) who gives direction or wisdom or advice.  He petitions for forgiveness of his sins (1832) and to know how to obtain salvation/which church to join (1838).  Of course, these archetypes also represent parts of our own personality.  IOW, Jung might say that JS has tapped into his inner wisdom, his internal wellspring of creativity and enlightenment.

We all know the specifics of the answer he was given as recorded in the 1838 version.  Consider that advice from a Jungian perspective, and there is a subtle change.  JS asks which external source of truth is right for him to follow.  He is told to stop looking outside himself for enlightenment because those sources of wisdom are not correct and are corrupted by others’ perspectives.  He is left to wait for further inspiration (or to find wisdom from within as Jung would see the God figure as a manifestation of JS’s spiritual side).

This is a classic hero myth: the quest for spiritual wisdom.  The hero must first reconcile his double nature (the Shadow and Persona) in order to transcend and achieve enlightenment.  Interestingly, one could also see the endowment as another telling of this same story, personalized for attendees – one’s progressive quest for spiritual wisdom and enlightenment, with a similar culmination.

So, what do you think?  Is a Jungian view of the First Vision useful?  Does this add meaning for you?  Do you consider dreams and visions too similar for this type of approach to be of value?  Discuss.

‘The Sealed Portion – The Final Testament of Jesus Christ’ is published free online.  The book is 655 pages long with 100 chapters, each divided into verses, and there are even Chapter headings.  Stylistically the text is similar to the Book of Mormon itself.  But from my brief  overview here are few samples from his translation that interested me.

Christopher expands on the vision seen by the Brother of Jared, he writes “Behold this is the Kingdom and Glory of our Father.  It was on this world that our Father begat his posterity, even the spirits of all men which lived upon the world which thou standest.  And this was once a world like unto the world on which thou livest, and is where our father learned the mysteries and responsibilities of godhood.  And behold, it is upon this same world where the Mother of the Spirits of all the children of God reside with the Father” (TSP: 2: 12-3). 

In Chapter 3 the Brother of Jared meets the Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Mother.  Here he provides the name of the Heavenly Mother.  This chapter shows that God practices polygamy.  Chapter 4 teaches how spirits are born from the various Heavenly Mothers.  In Chapter 8 we learn that Michael ruled Heaven when Jesus came down for his mortal ministry.  Furthermore we learn that “Michael is the other member of the Godhead, yea even the Holy Ghost” (TSP: 8: 17).  Michael can do this because when he died he refused to take upn him a resurrected body. 

In Chapter 10 the details of the Endowment are shown to have been taught.  The text teaches that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and received the Endowment but because of the wickedness of the people he was taken from the Church and that the Lord left this people to their own devices.  As a result the Endowment would be changed from the pure form revealed by Joseph Smith.  The leaders after Joseph Smith will do this because they seek the praise of the world.  Christopher reveals that the Lord wants all people to have this endowment without any keeping of the commandments.  He then continues to give the endowment in detail in the text.  Christopher also provides us with a revealed understanding of the Endowment in his book Sacred, Not Secret.

He has also published his ideas regarding how to overcome world poverty on youtube.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to read the whole text.  I guess I did not feel particularly inspired by it.  However, has anyone ever heard anything from Christopher before?  Being from England I may be a bit late to the game.  On the FAIR site there are some cursory details about his life and some quotations from interviews he has given.  They also try to show that the translation is a forgery. 

What do you think about the ideas that he includes at the beginning of the book.  I guess this raises important questions for us about how we can discern whether Christopher has a message for us.  I am not convinced, but I acknowledge that I am may be closed off from this.

Background

A bit of background information is necessary.  My family is of “pioneer stock” through both sides of my family, so we have a rich heritage of Mormon tradition.  However, my parents actually never forced, coerced, or otherwise tried to get me to go to church.  I honestly never felt pressured to live a certain way, obey any particular rules, go to church, or anything else. Part of this may be because I never gave them any reason to.  I have always been a straight shooter.  I have always tried my best to obey my leaders, earn all the awards, sing in the choirs, read all the books etc.  From a very early age (probably around 14 or so) I began reading my scriptures every night.  Because my patriarchal blessing told me to familiarize myself with the life of Joseph Smith, I read several hagiographic biographies of him.  I was no expert in Church History, but I thought that I had a good feel for it (snicker).

However, much of this was a cover up for the questioner inside.  I also had a lot of heterodox ideas that I kept bottled up.  As a young teenager it occurred to me that the general authorities, and past prophets often contradicted each other a great deal.  I was so concerned about this I even saw my bishop for it!  I also had some strange ideas about absolute Truth.  Typical answers for Nephi killing Laban seemed very unsatisfactory to me.  I concluded that the only truth could be whatever God wanted but I admittedly didn’t know how I would know what God wanted.  As a good Latter-day Saint, I deferred to my leaders and their revelations as God’s will.

I paint this picture to illustrate that my tale is, what I have come to learn, a typical disaffected Mormon story.  Often the culture in Mormonism is such that those that try the hardest, fall the hardest.

Unleashing the Analyst Part I

At BYU I decided to go into engineering.  While I had a propensity for analysis and questioning, I had no formal training in it, and I often deferred to authorities on various issues, assuming they knew much more than myself.  At around the beginning of my graduate work it occurred to me that I could do my own analysis.  I didn’t need to rely on any experts, or authorities.  I could do my own analysis and draw my own conclusions from my research (a necessity in order to obtain a graduate degree).

However, having said this, I only applied this thought process to my professional life, and politics.  As far as church was concerned, I still deferred to my leaders.

Proposition 8

After graduating from BYU in Electrical Engineering, I took a job in California.  In May 2008 Prop 8 came to the forefront of nearly every Californian’s life.  I won’t go into any details since it is more than familiar to everyone I’m sure.  Let me say that I started out determined to follow the Brethren.  I walked precincts, went to firesides, donated to protectmarriage.com, put up signs, and did the other things I was asked to do.  However, about three weeks before the vote I started wondering what the other side had to say.  I learned that in reality both sides (protectmarriage.com, and the “No on 8″ campaign) stretched the truth, used scare tactics, and were otherwise less than honest.

Political Craziness

About this point, since I was now outside of Utah, I felt a bit less pressure to toe the Republican line.  I had always felt that I didn’t align with either the Dems or the GOP.  I then discovered a commentator that was more aligned with my ideals (mostly Libertarian, although I hate assigning labels).  I started being very active on the forum on his website.  The majority of people on this forum seemed to be agnostic/atheist, and there were very very few who stood up for the traditional, conservative values.  Since I was not very well versed in politics and political history, I found myself mostly commenting on the social issues.  Many people challenged my opinion in ways that were very new to me, and I did not have adequate answers to their challenges.

I started to realize that maybe I wasn’t really different than other religious people.  In fact, maybe my choice of religion was/is just as arbitrary as those I thought were not in the “true” church.  Maybe I was/am wrong altogether and have not realized it.  This caused me to question why I believed the LDS church to be the one and only “true and living church” on the earth today.  I started to ponder my own spiritual experiences.

I will admit that I have always found it difficult to discern the spiritual promptings I receive.  It has always been befuddling to me why some thoughts are just thoughts and others are the promptings of the Spirit.  Furthermore, I have always wondered what it meant to have a spiritual witness that the church is true.  Did this mean I needed to cry?  Do I just need to feel peace?  And how could these things be separated from just regular emotions?

As I started rehearsing the spiritual experiences I held dear, I began to realize there was often a common pattern in them.  Namely, that I was going through a rough time in my personal life, I had a lot of anxiety, and generally had an important decision to make to which I needed some confirmation or answer.  I also realized that in many cases, in fact, even my most serious life questions, I actually didn’t get any answer at all.  In those cases I did what I thought was the most logical thing to do, and often attributed it to the Spirit.  This seemed to happen in the most serious of life decisions, and I was left to wonder if God had any interest in me at all.

Psychology

I started to develop an interest in understanding more about my emotions, “revelations,” and other cognitions.  I started looking into psychology and was fascinated by what I found.  I felt that my experiences could often be very easily explained in normal psychological terms and were really no different than people of other faiths.  I began to distrust my spiritual experiences, considering them to not be adequately reliable to tell me the truth about such a perplexing question as to which religion was “true.”

Ultimately, this was the lynch pin.  I felt that I had never received an “unmistakable witness” as President Packer has indicated:

Sometimes you may struggle with a problem and not get an answer.  What could be wrong?  It may be that you are not doing anything wrong.  It may be that you have not done the right things long enough.  Remember, you cannot force spiritual things.  Sometimes we are confused simply because we won’t take no for an answer. … Put difficult questions in the back of your minds and go about your lives.  Ponder and pray quietly and persistently about them.  the answer may not come as a lightning bolt.  It may come as a little inspiration here and a little there, ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ (D&C 98:12).  Some answers will come from reading the scriptures, some from hearing speakers.  And occasionally, when it is important, some will come by very direct and powerful inspiration.  The prompting will be clear and unmistakable.

- Elder Boyd K. Packer

A Search for Evidence

All of this led to a search for some confirming evidence for the veracity of the church.  I didn’t know anything about all the conundrums, controversies, and tough questions surrounding the historicity of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, polygamy, and Church History in general.  As most of you will realize this led to a lot of problems.  Of course, one cannot address these issues without discovering lots of anti-mormon literature, as well as FARMS, and FAIRlds.org.  Upon discovering these sources I began to devour information about these topics.  However, I quickly discovered that while there was plenty to read about these topics, there was so much antagonism, polemics, distaste, and lack of good scholarship so as to destroy any confidence in most of the sources.  It seemed completely hopeless to discover any sort of truth in all the madness.  Ironically, I started to feel very much like what I envisioned Joseph himself must have felt like.

Unleashing the Analyst Part II

By now, I was prepared to finally unleash the analyst to the realm of religion and spirituality.  I had been doing it in my professional career, and in other realms of life for a number of years.  I had become good at doing my own independent research, both for my professional decisions, and life decisions (you don’t even wanna know what a pain it is to shop for a major purchase with me).

Discovering Church History for Myself

So, having unleashed the analyst, I was prepared to do my own study of church history.  I wanted to find the “truth” about Church History.  Of course, when I say “truth” I note that in fact it isn’t really “truth” per se.  It is the best guess that honest scholarship can make.  History is an interesting pursuit for a multitude of reasons.  We don’t have all the resources we would like, the resources we do have are biased, and the researcher himself may have his own biases.  Joseph Freeman once said

Everyone falsifies history even if it is only his own personal history. Sometimes the falsification is deliberate, sometimes unconscious; but always the past is altered to suit the needs of the present. The best we can say of any account is not that it is the real truth at last, but that this is how the story appears now.
Joseph Freeman

StayLDS.com

At about my point of deepest despair, when I wasn’t sure whether or not I would leave the church, I discovered the Mormon Stories podcasts, and StayLDS.com.  For those who don’t know, StayLDS.com is a site, with forum, in which disaffected, or otherwise questioning Mormons can go and discuss tough issues with the intent of remaining LDS.  At the time, I actually wasn’t sure whether or not I wanted to remain LDS.  However, I did know that I didn’t need anymore negativity, nor did I need anyone to feed my ego, or validate my ideas.  I needed someone to show me another side – a perspective in which people with heterodox ideas remain an active part of the community.

The site has been tremendously helpful for me.  I feel much like John Dehlin does.  I am a Mormon, through and through.  It is my culture, my tribe, my people.  And I love them, even with all the quirks.

So Where Am I At Now?

At the present, I am still in pursuit of learning about Church History.  I have learned a lot, and formed some opinions which I loosely cling to.  I still have much to learn in this regard and I remain open to any number of possibilities.

I do a great deal of study about philosophy, and psychology, and don’t feel any need to fit this into a Mormon theological box.

I have not forgotten what has brought me to this point, so I am still fairly skeptical, and try to remain firmly grounded in reality.  In this way, I think I often come across as faithless.

I also like to explore the “Middle Way” in Mormonism.  I believe that a metaphorical belief in the Gospel benefits me every bit as much as a literal belief.

I love serving others, and find that Mormonism offers me a great way to accomplish this.  I also like having my heterodox ideas challenged in new ways because this helps me learn and grow.

Finally, I am a 100%, dyed in the wool, Buffet Mormon.  Yep, I pick and choose what I like, and what I don’t like.  I have separated my spiritual growth from the LDS church, and view the LDS church as a tool to help me obtain that growth.

Now go ahead and let me have it!!

Christian sects have a Jewish problem.  Christ was a Jew who either fulfilled or rejected the faith in which he was raised.  Christianity shed basic tenets of Judaism including circumcision, dietary restrictions, the authority of the rabbis, and rituals that became impractical as the religion gained non-Jewish converts.  Early Christians invested in highlighting any Old Testament scripture that could plausibly be considered Messianic to bolster their claim that Jesus was divine.  Many early Christians sought to discredit the Jews to make it clear that despite their common roots, it was the parent religion that was in error, not its offspring.  A negative cycle of Jewish antagonism ensued which resulted in some of the worst atrocities of humanity, including the Inquisition and the Holocaust.

From its inception, Mormonism re-invented the relationship of Christianity to its Hebrew roots.  The Book of Mormon purports to be written by Hebraic people who openly worshiped Jesus Christ and knew directly about him, hundreds of years before his birth.  In proposing a pre-Christ Christology, Mormonism created an alternate Jewish history with a very recognizable and familiar Jesus Christ in the role of Messiah.  Even Isaiah is quoted at length to further solidify the notion that Isaiah was specifically talking about Jesus.

From the very beginning, Mormons have viewed themselves as an actual part of the House of Israel.  This belief in being part of “the chosen people” gives Mormons today and early Mormons a sense of purpose.  Some of the “Israel-centric” beliefs of Mormonism:

• Gathering.  We believe in the literal gathering of Israel.  Many Christian sects also believe in this, and it certainly prompted the creation of the state of Israel.  Nevertheless, a unique component to the beliefs of early Mormonism was that there would be a “new” Jerusalem in the United States.
• Lost Tribes.  The LDS have a belief that each member of the church is literally descended from (or adopted into) one of the Lost 10 Tribes.  As revealed through Patriarchal Blessings, most hail from the tribe of Ephraim, although commonly, native Americans and Polynesians tend to be assigned to Mannaseh, while those of actual Jewish descent have tribe assignments that reflect that.  (Incidentally, the Church of God in Christ, a black Pentacostal church formed in 1907 also has unique beliefs about the lost tribes, believing that England is Ephraim and the U.S. is the tribe of Mannaseh.)
• Utah’s geography.  When Saints arrived in Utah, the fact that there was a northbound freshwater lake flowing into a salt water lake was yet another sign that this was the right gathering place for the heirs of Israel, one with the same geography as the holy land.
• Wandering.  The House of Israel wandered for 40 years before inheriting their promised land, which was frankly a barren wasteland.  Sound familiar?  Early Mormons considered their westward trek to be another test of the House of Israel, wandering by faith toward an unknown destination, and finally arriving in their arid home.  Yet pioneer stories are retold in Mormonism much as stories of Moses and the Israelites were told within Judaism.

When apostasy struck in Kirtland (over the bank failure and economic crisis of 1837), elders were sent under Heber C. Kimball’s leadership to England to preach.  Within 8 months, there were two thousand converts to Mormonism, many of whom are ancestors of current members of the church.  Most of these new converts (through Patriarchal Blessings) were assigned to the tribe of Ephraim.  Is the claim that the British descend from the tribe of Ephraim credible?  Interestingly, the idea that the Celts were descended from the Hebrews (tribe of Ephraim) has many non-LDS and LDS proponents.  This idea became popular in England, especially during the Victorian age; critics considered it an attempt to justify colonialism.  The catalyst for its popularity was a book written in 1871 by Edward Hine.

A few reasons Celts are believed to descend from the tribe of Ephraim:

• similarities between Druidism and Phoenician religious worship combined with early Hebrew worship, see here.
• similaries in Celtic names and Hebrew names, see here.
• cultural similarities, see here.

And, a quick poll to see what tribe you were assigned personally.  (My guess is we’ll be over 95% Ephraim):

[poll id="43"]

So, what do you think?  Does the church’s view of the House of Israel strengthen our position and give the people a sense of purpose lacking in some other sects (but present in some other non-LDS sects as well)?  Was it an ingenious concept unique to Mormonism?

And do you believe in the accuracy of lineage as assigned in Patriarchal Blessings?  Why or why not?  Do you think that Celts are of Hebrew descent?

Discuss.

In Hinduism we read “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi” or “Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names.” I’m a big Joseph Campbell fan. He pointed out the goal of religion is to take us beyond the dualistic conception of reality, or “pairs of opposites,” to a stage of transcendence. I think we find this in Mormonism as well. The words of Lehi in 2nd Nephi 2:11:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

juxtaposed against Christ’s admonition in John 17:11, 21:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Ultimately, I wonder if there is a duality, each side of which is to be satisfied, maybe it is our mission in life to overcome it and become one?

2.  What does it mean to be “spiritual”? And an extension of this, do religions always help us be more “spiritual”? This is where I’d like to focus my thoughts. Joseph Campell’s message, research, and ideas can be summarized by the phrase “Follow your bliss.” Might I suggest this as a definition of “spirituality.” I am convinced that this could be science, mathematics, scholarship, religion, mythology, music, pottery, philosophy, languages, poetry, etc. etc. etc. From Campbell:

The way to find out about happiness is to keep your mind on those moments when you feel most happy, when you are really happy – not excited, not just thrilled, but deeply happy. This requires a little bit of self-analysis. What is it that makes you happy? Stay with it, no matter what people tell you. This is what is called following your bliss.[3]

As a case study, I’d like to compare Joseph Smith with Albert Einstein. Joseph Smith needs no explanation to this audience. He was a visionary, a mystic, a prophet, a charismatic leader, superstitious, an author (depending on your POV). But no matter how you spin it, he was a deeply “spiritual” man in the traditional sense of the word – that is, he was concerned about God and religion, afterlife, premortal life, ordinances, revelation, and authority.

The less traditional case is Albert Einstein. When most of us think of him, we might think of general, and special relativity, and more specifically E=mc^2. What we don’t think of, are his profound thoughts on nature, religion, God, oneness, etc. From Albert Einstein:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.[1]

It seems to me, from this statement (and many others he made) that he was “following his bliss” via his scientific endeavors. It would appear that Einstein was deeply “spiritual” in this sense. He was passionate about the subject that, for him, led him to a place of appreciation, love, respect, and kindness for all things living. A kind of transcendence above the need for “opposition in all things.” Note the following:

“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”[2]

But lest you think that his convictions came from religion, or traditional “spirituality,” observe this statement:

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”[1]

My point, at the end of the day, is twofold: first, the seeming duality is, possibly, something we are to overcome, and second, that “spirituality” can be defined as following whatever means leads us toward this realization.  Religion, God, the Holy Ghost, prayer, and Mormonism is one way to achieve that end. I suggest there are as many other ways as there are human beings!

What say ye?

[1] http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-ei … eology.htm

[2] http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

[3] http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_campbell/

Today’s guest post is by Michael. In the spirit of Mormon Stories, he was invited to share his experience.

I thought the people that believed in the church and loved me most in the would have at least tried to “save my soul.” I would have done it for them, had the roles been reversed. Although, it would have led me to the place where I am now, which may be the underlying (perhaps subconscious) reason why they don’t wish to go there.

—————

If someone told me three years ago that I would be where I am now, I would have never believed them. And yet, here I am. A few years ago, I decided that I should probably learn more about church history. Not out of pure interest, but more out of duty. I heard that the book “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” was written by a member of the church, but didn’t give the usual sanitized version of history that is given in Sunday School. I was intrigued.

I read the book. It was slow going, but I finished it. More than any of the strange practices or weird events, the thing that bugged me the most was Joseph Smith himself. I couldn’t place it at first, but I soon realized that I didn’t really like Joseph as a person. I felt kind of guilty about that because we have been raised, and it has been ingrained in us, to love Joseph and the other men of the restoration. My feelings of guilt were lessened a bit when I found out that I was definitely not the only one that felt that way. There were many others in the church that felt the same way. In fact, my dad bought a video that features a question and answer session with the author and even he admits that, by the time he was done with his research and writing, he did not like Joseph Smith either.

When I finished with the book, it made me wonder: Maybe there was a reason why things were not sitting right with me and others. The Joseph we had been taught about growing up was not the real Joseph, so who was. Also, I wondered: If this book was written by a member, then how much of a positive slant is he putting on things? That’s when my journey really began. There are so many differing and conflicting accounts out there that I sometimes felt like a detective, trying to piece together what most made sense to me.

As I said above, I went searching into church history as a kind of church duty. I felt that I ought to take a look into it. I thought that I would search things out and find that history would vindicate the church and the prophet. I believed (and believe) that the truth does not fear investigation and the facts would be overwhelmingly in favor of the church. I found the opposite to be the case. This mostly surprised me because of my father.

He is well versed in church history, and I think I trusted heavily in his ability to interpret events. Sometimes, when I would find out something new, I would ask him, “Doesn’t this bother you?!?” He wouldn’t answer. At times I wondered why I was the only one who was bothered by some of the things I was finding. I wondered if I was the only crazy one or the only one who wasn’t. I couldn’t understand why, when I showed them a claim of the church or Joseph Smith and then showed them how that claim was in fact false, they didn’t seem to care. Well, I found out some interesting things related to that. Although most of the close people around me did not seem to want to face any of this stuff, I found out that I was not alone. Besides a number of people that I know that don’t believe, but are hanging on for various other reasons (family, friends, structure, etc.), there are many, many people leaving the church every year. It always helps a person fell less crazy when you know there are others making hard decisions like you.

The other thing that made me understand the situation better, was something told to me by a friend. I mentioned to him that I could not understand why these things bugged me and no one else seemed to care. He said, “Ok, tell me something that bugs you.” So for the 20th time or so, I mentioned that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri. A decade after Joseph died, the Egyptian language was deciphered from the Rosetta Stone. Reading the papyri, it does not say what Joseph claims it said. When I gave him that one example, he went on to say that most people don’t think as much as I do, so they don’t let it bother them. Adding to that, he said, “Plus, it’s the Book of Abraham. Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” And then he ended, mentioning that some people will stay in for the sake of loyalty–they are Mormon and will always be Mormon.

Those are ideas that had never really entered my mind. It had never really occurred to me that even if the facts were against the church, people would still remain in it. I was not sure which answer he gave me that bugged me the most. If he only knew how much the Book of Abraham feeds into his own belief system. How could he say, “Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” I mean, the teachings exclusive to Mormonism don’t come from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was written in such a way that it virtually does not stray from biblical teachings. There is little or nothing new in the doctrine from the Book of Mormon. It is the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price that set Mormon theology apart from “regular” Christian theology.

These words of indifference, of not caring if it is true in the literal sense are so foreign to me. I first heard them from my best friend a few years ago, before I had ever expressed any doubts. As we passed by the house of a neighbor that had left the church after studying church history, he said, “I don’t understand Bro. So-and-So. I mean, even if I didn’t think the church was true, I wouldn’t leave it.” At that point, I blurted out a very loud, “WHAT?!? Are you serious?” He was. My other best friend who was also there that night is the one I mentioned in the above paragraph, who also doesn’t care about the church being true in any literal sense. Another close friend, for whom I was the best man at his temple wedding, wrote me an email when he found out that I had left the church. It was not what I expected. He congratulated me on doing what he said he never had the courage to do.

Perhaps the most painful response was from my girlfriend. She told me she was proud of me and for what I was doing. She started calling me Winston (the main character from 1984, who rebels against Big Brother). It shocked me that she would say such a thing that seemed so telling to me, and it saddened me when she said she wouldn’t be joining me. In HER OWN ANALOGY she chose to love Big Brother.

These people that have been such a large part of my life (three of the four I have known since we were children) now feel like strangers to me. Their way of thinking on this matter has never been an option for me. I have always considered such choices to be wrong, even in the best-case scenario, and in a worst-case scenario, downright evil. Although I don’t consider this a worst-case scenario, I am still left baffled that such good people would choose such a path. It would bother me less if they hadn’t all served missions and didn’t plan on teaching the rising generation that these beliefs are true. If they stand where they do, why are they passing the information on as truth? I am still working on the answer to that one. In the mean time, for the sake of preserving respect for my loved ones, I am forced to concede that making the choice to believe in something that you don’t truly think is reality, may not be as evil as I thought…

Let’s start with faith.  There are many definitions of faith, and each religion seems to place a slightly different emphasis on faith and its meaning.  From Wikipedia: “faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”  In Christianity faith is an act of trust or reliance on Deity.  In this way it is distinguished by the object of its faith rather than the faith itself [1].  In Islam, faith is a complete submission of will to Allah.  In Hinduism it means an unshaken belief and purity of thought.  In Buddhism faith connotates a feeling of conviction, specifically a conviction that something is, a determination to accomplish one’s goals, and a sense of joy deriving from these two.

There is another important aspect of some people’s faith – fideism.  Fideism is the idea of having faith for the sake of having faith.  That is to say, it does not rely on logic, or reason of any kind.  It is independent of reason, and even holds that reason and faith are diametrically opposed.  This may lead us, in the church, to shun intellectualism and focus instead on faith.  For many TBMs, faith trumps logic.  Some believe that the events of the restoration were physical, external realities.  This can result in viewing our own spiritual experiences as evidence of external realities.  We are taught from a young age that the “Spirit” will direct us, put thoughts in our head, prompt us to do things, not do things, comfort us, and even tell us what is “true.”

Intellectualism (rationalism, reason, logic, etc.) is “any of a number of views regarding the use or development of the intellect . . .”  It is sometimes synonymously viewed with “rationalism” the idea that knowledge is derived through reasoning [2].

In my life I have had thoughts come into my head, felt comfort, and felt promptings.  However, it has never been clear to me, since some of these thoughts were wrong and uninspired, how to distinguish “spiritual promptings” I should heed, from just plain ‘ole regular thoughts.  In other words, my “thoughts,” or “promptings” or “experiences” have not always been a manifestation of external truth or reality.

Science is often the “poster child” for intellectualism.  But it indeed has a strong track record.  It is repeatable, reliable, and effective at describing the physical realities that surround us.  Although science is imperfect, its mechanisms are very good, indeed inspired.  On the downside, science is not spiritual.  Science doesn’t write poetry, compose music, paint pictures, or do other activities meet humanity’s spiritual needs.  Science is a utility.  It is one of many tools in the toolbox of life.  It complements faith.

Faith, on the other hand, inspires us, makes us happier, makes us feel good.  It serves as a guide to help us know right from wrong.  It gives us comfort, something to rely upon, and hold to.  I believe that faith is the soul’s innermost desire to express itself, to be born, to come out, to manifest itself in the world around us.  Arguably most importantly, faith moves us to action, and that action is a manifestation of the spiritual being within.  There is great worth in this concept.  It is in this sense, that I believe that faith, like science, is a tool in our toolbox of life.

Having said this, why is it that so many view intellectualism as mutually exclusive to faith?  Might I suggest one possible cause; that religions and people have a psychological affinity for treating the spiritual as physical realities.  Studies have shown that people who have sleep-paralysis, after having an episode, associate the events with reality.  They literally are unable to distinguish the fact that it was a dream.  Is it possible that this happens at the subconscious level even while awake?  Certainly for some people this will be more pronounced than for others.  This can help explain why Joseph had many visions, revelations, etc. which he deemed external realities, yet many, and even most, prophets after him have not.  Joseph was a visionary, for whatever reason.  That does not necessarily mean that his experiences were literal, external, physical realities.  And what if, indeed, they weren’t?

This does not, in my mind, diminish the idea that the metaphorical ideas shared through these experiences can help us in our lives.  Nor does it mean that the organization that he started was worthless even if it’s origins were slightly less miraculous than we like to tell.  Muhammad had visions, and conversations with the angel Gabriel which were eventually written down to form the Quran.  The idea that Muhammad wrote that book himself is heretical to a Muslim.  Yet if it really came from the angel Gabriel should we not heed the teachings contained therein?  But in Mormonism we don’t.  In fact, we don’t give it a second thought.  My solution to this conundrum is the same as that of Joseph.  Muhammad was a visionary.  He even wrote a beautifully inspired book that is every bit as sacred, special, and inspired as the Book of Mormon. However, I would suggest that the truths therein, and even his conversations with the angel Gabriel were internal experiences and metaphors.

This viewpoint makes it a lot easier for me to have faith in Joseph’s teachings, Christ, God, etc.  I have internalized these concepts.  They are metaphors for my spirituality.  I don’t need to reconcile them with science.  I don’t need to reconcile them with reason, or logic, or rationalism.  And I don’t need to reconcile them with any specific brand of religion as they all have metaphors that can help me in my life.  I can have the celestial kingdom right here, right now in my life, by being humble, kind, loving others, etc.  If we will live the way He advocated, we can unleash the inner god and in this way have a testimony of the doctrine.  This, I believe is what Jesus meant when he said “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”  (John 7:17)

Is faith in an external reality necessary for spiritual growth?  If faith moves us to action, is faith in metaphorical ideas as powerful as faith in physical realities?  Does intellectualism present a problem for faith in external realities?  Is that problem reduced if we only have faith in metaphorical ideas?

Discuss.

[1] Wikipedia article on faith.
[2] Wikipedia article on intellectualism

But then, quite unexpectedly, the lesson took a decidedly more interesting turn. The instructor focused on one seemingly minor detail of Joseph’s account that, despite having read it dozens of times, came as a surprise to me: “He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.”  (JS-H 1:20).

To be honest, I had totally forgotten about Joseph’s private conversation with God. Of course, the notion of God forbidding his prophets from writing down something he has told or shown them is not new. But what makes this 15-word passage (which is not mentioned again in the History) particularly interesting is that Joseph never was shy about sharing what he felt had been revealed to him. Furthermore, as far as I know, he never revealed what “other things” God had told him during that experience.

The teacher then posed a question, which I now present for your consideration: what unwritten things do you think God said to Joseph at that moment?

Since that lesson, I have given quite a bit of thought to what God might have told the 14-year old Joseph. As far as I know, Joseph never clarified this ambiguity.  In the absence of such an explanation, here is the best I can do:

For us looking back, the purpose of the First Vision was the restoration of the Gospel — the re-opening of the heavens, the beginning of the last dispensation, the kingdom of God once again on the Earth, etc.  But for Joseph, all of that was well in the future. For him, the experience was of a much more narrow and personal scope — God forgave his sins and answered his prayer (a point made even more prominently in the earliest versions of the experience). What was to come in subsequent years likely was far beyond even his wildest dreams at the time. God, on the other hand, knew what was in the cards for his chosen Prophet. With that in mind, I like to imagine that this “off-the-record” time was a moment when God stepped out of his role of “Restorer” and into his role as “Father.”

I have three daughters and, many times, I can see danger ahead long before they do. Countless times I have pulled their bikes out of the path of approaching cars, yanked their hands out of doorjambs, and scooped them up before they left the sidewalk. I’m no superhero, that’s just part of the job of being a father. Perhaps in that moment, as Joseph stood on the precipice of a brand new life as God’s “chosen one” — a life filled with suffering, loss, and persecution culminating in his murder — God took a brief sidebar to warn his child of the dangers ahead, to express his appreciation for him, and to tell him, “I love you.” Speaking as a father, that makes a lot of sense to me. Speaking as a fellow child of God, that brings me peace.

Your speculation, of course, is as good as mine. What do you think?

Once again, Joe Spencer provides an excellent recap of the lesson here.  He specifically makes a great point that the correlators of the lesson manual seem to fundamentally misunderstand Joseph’s point about governing ourselves.  To quote Joe regarding the section entitled  Leaders teach correct principles and help those they lead learn to govern themselves:

“I think it important to point out how the title of this first section completely misunderstands and so ultimately misrepresents Joseph’s teachings within the section. Joseph indeed teaches that leaders teach correct principles, but he does not teach that leaders also help those they lead learn to govern themselves.”

I’m sure the mistake was well-intentioned, but it does cut to the heart of what many members find irritating in the church today, the administrative or corporate quality that the church has developed.  We have sacrificed leading for managing in some cases.

One wonders what Joseph Smith would say if he time traveled to a modern ward.  He might not fit local leadership’s perceptions of what would qualify him for some callings.  After all, he was only ever a member of the church for 14 years (before his death).  He might be considered a relative newcomer with little experience in some circles within the church.  He died young enough that many wards would not consider him old enough to be a High Priest.

What are the qualities of leadership, according to Joseph? Here are the ones mentioned in the lesson:

1. Leaders teach correct principles.  ”I told him I obtained power on the principles of truth and virtue, which would last when I was dead and gone.”  (1844)  How does teaching incorrect principles result in loss of power?  Do those incorrect principles die when the teacher is dead and gone?
2. Those they lead govern themselves.  JS:  “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”  (quoted by John Taylor in 1851)  “I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days . . . and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.”  (quoted by Brigham Young in 1870).  How does this differ from managing and being the decision maker for others in our stewardship?  What are the pitfalls of this kind of free-for-all leadership style?
3. Leaders receive the wisdom they need from the Spirit.  “A man of God should be endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, in order to teach and lead the people of God.” (1843)  How does a foolish leader differ from a wise one?  Are leaders always teachers first and foremost in the church? “There are many things of much importance, on which you ask counsel, but which I think you will be perfectly able to decide upon, as you are more conversant with the peculiar circumstances than I am; and I feel great confidence in your united wisdom.”  (1840)  JS routinely deferred all decisions to the lowest level possible.  The recent statement by TSM similarly referred members to go to local leadership rather than writing to church HQ for every matter.  Why is this good counsel?  Are there exceptions?
4. Leaders acknowledge the Lord’s blessings to them.  Weird.  There isn’t really a matching quote for this in the lesson, but the lesson quotes do talk about the need to pray for our leaders.
5. Leaders in the Lord’s kingdom love those they serve.  “I possess the principle of love. All I can offer the world is a good heart and a good hand” (1843)
6. Leaders teach through their love and example. The example given here is Zion’s Camp, which always seems like a really bad camping trip gone awry that is then parlayed into a “character-building” lesson.

How do you think we generally stack up as a church today, from the lowest levels of leadership to the highest?  Are there some of these that are more of a watch-out for us than others?  Are there some that tend to be harder at different levels than others?  Are there other principles of leadership that should be mentioned here but aren’t?

Discuss.

His early prototypes of the temple practice we know today started in Kirtland, where they were much different.  Participants would fast for a day or two, attend to ritual washings and annointings to symbolically cleanse and purify themselves, and then participate in intense prayers, blessings, and expressions of spiritual gifts.  The goal was to have a transcendent vision of the divine.  It seemed that Joseph wanted many people to tap into what he was experiencing.  People who participated described him trying to get it all just write, to set groups participating in proper order, kind of feeling his way through to getting people into that mystical state.

I recently ran across this paragraph that made such a good summary:

Endowment, Joseph’s name for the temple ceremony, connected it to promises made long before his encounter with Freemasonry. In early revelations, the word “endowment” referred to seeing God, a bequest of Pentecostal spiritual light. The use of the word “endowment” in Nauvoo implied that the goal of coming into God’s presence would be realized now through ritual rather than a transcendent vision. This transition gave Mormonism’s search for direct access to God an enduring form. David Hume, the eighteenth-century empiricist and critic of “enthusiastic” religion, had observed that outbursts of visions and revelations soon sputtered out. They lacked form to keep them alive. They could not endure because they had “no rites, no ceremonies, no holy observances, which may enter into the common train of life, and preserve the sacred principles from oblivion.” To remain in force, “enthusiasm” had to be embodied in holy practice. Ann Taves, a modern scholar of religion, has added that “direct inspiration survives only when it is supported by a sacred mythos embedded in sacred practices.” The Mormon temple’s sacred story stabilized and perpetuated the original enthusiastic endowment.

-Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling“ pg 450-451

The temple became a focal point, a place to seek a connection to the divine.  Sure, it is plain that God does not need a temple to communicate with humankind.  Some of the greatest interactions with God recorded in scripture happened in wilderness settings — no temple or building was required.  But how would one stabilize this experience for a large, growing religion; one that could endure past the life of the mystic founder?  Members of the LDS Church today often go to the temple when they have a pressing personal need to connect with the divine, when they seek answers or feel they need spiritual help and guidance.

Would we be the same church if our method was to fast and hermitage in a cave, or travel out in the wilderness?  Perhaps it is possible, but the temple provides a place of focus for a growing and diverse community within the Church.  It is still a place we see as a source for the transcendent mystical experience.  Participants can experience the ritual and ceremony on many levels, with different views about the purpose depending on their own place of faith.  It can be literal to one person.  It can be symbolic to another.  It can be both and none.  Indeed it has endured past Joseph, the original mystic of our foundation, even if our experience today is not exactly the same as back in the time of Nauvoo or Kirtland.  It serves the same purpose over time.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/24/temple-ceremony-the-stabilizer-for-mystical-enthusiasm/feed/ 7 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/21/unity-diversity-and-conformity/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/21/unity-diversity-and-conformity/#comments Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:01:43 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3299 How do we create and maintain unity at church while valuing diversity and avoiding conformity?  Do we have to embrace the diversity of those who value conformity?  Do we have to unify with those whose diversity gives us the heebie jeebies?

This post is actually a virtual RS/PH lesson, #23:  “How Good and How Pleasant It Is . . . to Dwell Togehter in Unity.”  See how I snuck that in there?  Here are some interesting points from the lesson:

The first part of the lesson emphasizes how temple building brought the Saints together in a common purpose.  It is interesting that the focus is on the work to build the temple, and there is no specific implication that the temple itself would create unity among the Saints, a point made more eloquently by joe spencer here.)

How Action Unites Us

The efforts of the Kirtland Saints were typical of the unity, sacrifice, and devotion that would make it possible for the Lord’s purposes to be fulfilled in the years to come. This was one of many times when the Saints would pull together, heeding the admonition of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “A long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together.” (JS quoted by BY in 1867)

Q:  Although we are no longer typically involved in the act of building temples, how does temple construction still bring church members together?  What other action-oriented events create unity of purpose?  Consider:  lay clergy, visiting/home teaching, humanitarian/service projects, etc.

Q:  How do church members sometimes pull in different directions vs. together?  What happens when church members pull in different directions rather than together?

Q:  Does a lack of action create disharmony (as the saying goes “idle hands are the devil’s playground”–or something like that)?

A Diverse Church

“We would wish the Saints to understand that, when they come here, they must not expect perfection, or that all will be harmony, peace, and love; if they indulge these ideas, they will undoubtedly be deceived, for here there are persons, not only from different states, but from different nations, who, although they feel a great attachment to the cause of truth, have their prejudices of education, and, consequently, it requires some time before these things can be overcome. “  (1841)

Q:  Do people still expect perfection of other church members?  How do these expectations create disunity in the church?

Q:  How do cultural divides cause disunity in the church?  How can we overcome that in a global church that includes members from all personalities, political persuasions, and socio-economic divides?

Q:  What “prejudices of education” still exist in the church today?  How do we overcome these prejudices?

A Social Church

“We, all of us, have our friends, our connections, our families and associations; and we find that the ties of friendship … and brotherhood have indissolubly united us together with a thousand endearing associations; we have embraced the one common faith.  A kindred sympathy runs through the whole body, even the body of Christ, which, according to Paul’s statement, is his church; and no one part of the body can be injured without the other parts feeling the pain, for says Paul, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and if one member rejoice all the rest are honored with it.” (1842)

Q:  Who should be considered part of the Saints?  All who self-identify as Mormons or just those who practice their religion?  All who sympathize with Mormons?

Q:  How do our ties to others in the church increase the church’s strength despite the many flaws we and other members have?

Q:  How do we help those who may feel like a minority in the church feel fully welcome and valued as a part of the group?  How do we keep the majority from driving out the minority?

Discuss.