Gene-Culture Coevolution & The Domestication of The Mormon People

In the YouTube video Culture-Gene Interactions: Peter Richerson-Culture-led Gene-culture Coevolution by University of California UUCTV), at 3 minutes the speaker Richerson puts up the slide that says that culture is a form of inheritance and that culture evolves in a Darwinian fashion by descent with modification. He argues that culture can evolve more rapidly than gene pools. Turns out that domestication is actually a good thing, despite Nietzsche's protests that it is "bad" to be a domesticated human animal. But what is wrong with domestication, who wants an undomesticated dog that tears up your furniture, takes a crap in your shoes every morning after peeing on the carpet and attacks every person it comes into contact with causing you legal hassles from the injuries your dog causes. The fact is that without what Haidt calls our hive instincts we would not have been able to form human tribes and flourish into societies and cities and countries, etc. If everyone were selfishly struggling for dominance in the social hierarchy without cooperation and cohesion, we would have just killed each other off and gone extinct as a species! This explains why Mormonism is a positive force of cultural ideas and customs, as it produces nicer people, more civilized people. See my post: Evidence that Mormon's are "Nicer" i.e. More "Christian" than Others. Here are two of the slides summarizing the theory that culture and genes coevolved:

Click to enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Evidence that Mormons are "Nicer" i.e. More "Christian" than Others

In the Jolly Heretic's video Why Mormons Are So Nice? he argues that nicer/kinder more agreeable people are Mormon and choose LDS culture while less agreeable people do not be LDS. He argues that many exmormons are likely less nice and agreeable compared to most Mormons. Here is the transcript provided by YouTube with my editing for ease of reading, starting about 6 minutes (words in bold for emphasis):

... one of the things that people always notice about Mormonism is that the people are so nice. They come across so nice and I wondered what is it, why would they be so nice ... such nice people. Well first of all it seems that they would be expected to be very high in the personality trait of openness. People who are high in openness tend to be trusting, ... in its early stages even when Joseph Smith was alive, Mormonism was highly evangelical and it sent lots and lots of missionaries over to the UK, to Wales, and Ireland and Scotts, and all kinds of port cities to convert people to Mormonism; and there was actually a point where there were considerably more Mormons in the UK than there were in America.

 

.... there's an element to which being trusting and thinking that other people are trusting is a part of being a nice person. So openness, the second thing that tends to predict migration is extraversion. So people that are prepared to take risks but also people who feel positive feelings strongly ... people who have a positive feeling strongly take risks and they take that risk in order to achieve the payoff; if you feel the positive feeling of your food or whatever it is strongly, you'll probably eat more food which is one of the reasons why extroverts tend to get fat and they have a lower life expectancy; but extroverts feel positive feelings strongly, they're amiable people and those would have been the kind of people that would have migrated from the UK. ... they would have been inclined to migrate again up to Utah, so they'll come across as nice people ... but even if they're not actually nice they'll come across as friendly engaging sort of people which Mormons do because they'll be high in extraversion as predicted by their ancestor's tendency to migrate ... remember these traits are somewhere in the region of at least 50% heritable if not perhaps as much as 70%.

 

 So we've got so far people who are high in openness and thus trusting and kind on a certain level ... it's people who are high in agreeableness and high in conscientiousness; agreeableness is about empathy, about being kind to people, about wanting to be nice to people; that is the nature of religious people, there is a clear correlation with religious people who are more nice and Mormons are particularly religious; and there was a survey in I think about 2009 in the USA which asked people how religious they were and of the Mormons it was the highest category that stated they were very religious ... most Mormons in all these categories that said they were very religious. Most people in Utah said they were very religious, 61% I think, it was exceeded only by Mississippi. So they're very religious and this would predict being high in agreeableness, so again a nice person.

 

Then you have to ask, who leaves? And this is quite interesting because a lot of people are leaving Mormonism ... Utah was 75 percent Mormon, in the year 2000 it's now gone down to about 60% Mormon, and among Millennials it seems it's going to be about 44 percent; so it will lose its Mormon majority ... People are leaving the Mormon Church and they may well be leaving the Mormon Church because of the degree to which the Internet allows them to find out things about the Mormon Church ... So you can see how they're more likely to start doubting things and so Mormonism. This raises the question of who stays and who goes. Well we have interesting data on this [... it was] demonstrated that those who leave and those who stay in religious groups in which they're born, they are high in social competence; in other words they are high in agreeableness, those who convert to other religious groups those who have a conversion experience become religious, they are lower in agreeableness than those who are born into the religious group. So those who were born in, there's clearly a degree to which its genetic. Those who are born into it will be very high and agreeableness because they've never even had ancestors recently who weren't religious.

 

Those who aren't from Mormonism or some other religion and convert into it they are relatively high in agreeableness, but they're lower in agreeableness than those who were born into it. Those who are the lowest of all in agreeableness are those who are apostates. They are lower in agreeableness even than those who convert, they are the lowest in agreeableness of all. So it means that those who are coming into Mormonism are going to be relatively high in agreeableness, they're perhaps not as high as those who were born into it but those who are leaving are going to be low, they're gonna be low in agreeableness. In other words, nasty people leave. Every generation just by genetic chance, some Mormons will be born and there'll be not very nice people and those people are going to leave Mormonism. So this will again elevate the degree to which Mormons are nice people.

 

Then we have to look at who has children, now for a long time there was a lot of pressure among the Mormons, really until the 70s to not use contraception at all and a certain degree of that pressure remains. There are these ideas in Mormon teaching that you should have as many children as you can possibly afford, it's God's will for you to have massive families. Mormons are very family-oriented and in that way you can see why the religion would have been adaptive because the genes associated with being a Mormon would have spread throughout the country. In a context in which there is contraception in which contraception is increasingly allowed then we have data on this. ... [those] invested in nurture of course did better at nurture ... as you have to be a nicer person and once you then end up with groups that are competing with other groups then the group that is more internally cooperative but externally hostile [to outsiders and threats], we know from the computer models is the more likely to survive and so this is going to select for people who are basically increasingly nice ... Those are the people that have children because those who don't want to have children are those people that don't want to nurture, they just wanna have sex ... that concept means they can have all the sex they want and they don't have to have children they don't have to nurture ... it's gonna mean that the un-pleasant don't have so many children and the nicer Mormons have more children which will again elevate the level of agreeableness the level of niceness among the Mormons.

 

Another factor that you have in the Mormon Church is the correlation between education level and fertility, you don't get this normally. The more educated a person is the fewer children they tend to have, in Mormonism this is reversed; and it seems that the reason for this is that Mormonism preaches that you need to be self-sufficient, it preaches that you shouldn't rely on anybody else; it preaches that you shouldn't rely on the community and so if you were a genuinely believing Mormon then you will only have as many children as you can afford. In America if you are wealthier and and Mormon you are consequently able to afford more children. You'll want to have more children because God is telling you to have more children and it's considered a blessing from God. So you have this relationship between education and fertility, now what predicts education level or one of those things is intelligence, its IQ, IQ predicts education level at about 0.5 something like that overall education level.

 

Another predictor, it's actually a slightly higher predictor is conscientiousness, so having self-control (being the kind of person doesn't lose their temper and whatever), basically to a degree correlates to being a nice person. So it can be argued that the whole system again will elevate niceness among Mormons, [while] the less nice people as long as they are accepting of the religion and do as the religion dictates will have fewer children.

 

Another issue is people marry people who are genetically similar to them ... they're also psychologically very similar. Consider that ... we've got data on the high heritability of these different personality traits and it's on these that people that marry tend to be more similar. So what this means is they'll tend to get on very well. ... These people who get along really really well have really strong marriages. Now what this will give people at the environmental level of personality is a very safe background, of everything's gonna be okay, a background where you can trust, a background of love, a background that sets you up for a slow life history strategy that sets you up to trust people and be kind and basically just be a nice person.

 

As a Mormon you're not allowed to drink alcohol, you're not allowed to drink coffee, you're not allowed to drink tea, you're not allowed to have sex before marriage and there's so many other strictures, you're expected to tithe, you're expected to give huge amounts of time over to the church. There's lots and lots of social pressure to be extremely cooperative. Indeed it's absolutely fascinating, this will of course select out people who are not you know particularly high in conscientiousness, agreeableness. Though you'd imagine that if they simply wouldn't be able to cope with it they would become Jack Mormons. These are Mormons that are brought up in it but they don't tithe and they don't keep to the rules of the church and so they're not allowed to enter the temple because Mormons have these temples that you can get married in but you're only allowed to go there with a temple recommend which you can only get if you're considered a Mormon in good standing. So that would select out these disagreeable, less "nice" people, it will just remove them. So again it would elevate the degree to which Mormons are these very nice people because you have this signaling based religion.

 

There was some research ... which found some evidence that Mormons can kind of look identical and Mormons as well can identify other Mormons just from the face, a degree to which it would be impossible by chance. Now part of this could be genetic similarity as I said, I mean most of Utah is the most English state in the Union. There would be genetic signals of that and perhaps people would be able to kind of identify it but another factor apparently was the quality of the skin Mormons seem to have nicer skin than non-Mormons, healthier skin than non-Mormons, and so there's a degree to which you can't really fake it, if you drink coffee and drink alcohol in private people will kind of unconsciously know it and you will be kind of treated accordingly. So again this helps to explain and push out people who are less agreeable.

 

Another issue is the issue of what's called group selection ....the group which is more likely to survive is the group that is high in cooperation and impulse control, positive ethnocentrism, ... Mormons are high in positive ethnocentrism ... high ethnocentrism, in much the same way that the Japanese come across as very very nice people, very kind people, a bit suspicious of change, a bit suspicious; but they'll be very nice to you, they'll be very nice to you but if you trigger them to think they're under threat then they will go for you and you see this in the way that the Japanese treated enemy soldiers during World War 2. ...

Here are the sources and the data he draws from:

Sources

Apostate and Convert Personality: [What Drives Apostates and Converters? The Social and Familial Antecedents of Religious Change among Adolescents by Gregory S. Longo and Jungmeen Kim-Spoon]

Religion and Personality: Religion, Personality, and Social Behavior 1st Editionby Vassilis Saroglou  

Hills, P., Francis, L. J., Argyle, M. & Jackson, C. (2004). Primary personality trait correlates of religious practice and orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 61-73.

Who breeds? Slow and Steady Wins the Race: K Positively Predicts Fertility in the USA and Sweden June 2017 Evolutionary Psychological Science 3(2) DOI:10.1007/s40806-016-0077-1.

Blume, M. (2009). The reproductive benefits of religious affiliation. In E. Voland & W. Schiefenhövel (Eds). The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior. New York: Springer. 

Mormon Religiousness: Gallup. (2009): Mormons most conservative major religious group in the US.

Stark, R. (2005). The Rise of Mormonism. New York: Columbia University Press.

From this perspective, LDS culture seems to retain within it the more altruistic “nice” traits, the Christian attributes of civility, kindness and charity, etc.

Also see Jacob Hansen's Is the Church Good? - Fruits of the Gospel, where Hansen relies on several polls and studies showing that LDS culture is a healthy culture and Mormonism is good.

Bullet Point Summary on Why Atheism Leads to Disrespect of Fathers, Dictatorial forms of Communism, & Nihilism

Here is what I've come to realize as of 2024, in a simple Bullet Point structure: 

• God as "Father" symbolizes  fatherhood (as at the very least an archetype) 
• Mary as "mother of God" symbolizes motherhood
• Jesus as the Son symbolizes the ideal son of a father as healer of wounded souls
• This is a family: Father, Mother, Son (as depiced below in an Eastern Orthodox icon)
• Thus to believe in God is to affirm the family unit as the ideal

(Source)

Atheism historically is not just the absence of belief in God but is at its developmental roots, anti-patriarchy:

• The etymology of patriarchy is basically fathers presiding in homes
• Good fathers presiding in homes leads to good (or healthier) children, becoming good citizens which produces a healthier more civil Society

• Atheism ends up attacking not just the "Father God" idea but by extension the father figure and undermines respect for fathers and father led homes by promoting directly or indirectly radical 4th Wave Feminism which is based in "satanic" and occult anti-Male ideology as covered in these books:

Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture. by Per Faxneld

 

Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation Paperback by Rachel Wilson

 

• This "satanic" and occult anti-Male ideology is based on antagonism toward men and fatherhood and it has basically infiltrated much of secular-atheist far-Leftist academia and media, and has morphed into anti-Christian political ideologies and policies; which has incrementally led to the removal of fathers from homes due to the rise of occult feminism and disrespect toward fathers in the culture. The removal of fathers from homes increases poverty and crime, for example most men in prison were raised by single mothers (without fathers in the home).

• Crime and poverty and societal chaos leads to uncertainty and public fear, which causes greater government control and power as the government and its control mechanisms replaces what fatherly theism previously provided through the ideal father and mother and son, and father led homes. 

This in brief is why I've learned that Atheism leads to radical 4th Wave Feminism, dictatorial forms of Communism as psychopathic and dictatoral personalities eventually seek to replace the Universal Father Idea within theism (that grounds belief in respect for fathers). Meanwhile, the turning away from the Universal Father imagery and ideal, and objective morality and ethics (rooted in part in the stability of the two parent family), leads to a psychological orphan effect: that of unconsciously feeling abandoned by the Universe without belief in the universal divine Father to buoy one up psychologically from sinking into a dark abyss of nothingness.

This lack of meaning in life, of an objective ethical Right and Wrong, and a higher purpose, leads to hedonistic selfishness and nihilism. This is why the atheist Bertrand Russell admitted that an honest atheism leads to accepting the state of unyielding despair. 

When you move past adolescent atheism by defining God-belief as "a man in the sky" -- and you become mature and sophisticated in your understanding of the origin of religion and theology -- you begin to realize that to present Jesus as King is to give honor and respect to manly strength and the leadership qualities and characteristics that lead to one becoming a good king or leader. You begin to see that referring to God as a "father," represents the universal Father Figure in general and the protective householder; and so to believe in God, to worship God, is to worship the ideal of the Father Figure, the ideal Householder (the protector and provider), who provides healthy order and structure to a family; which is the best way to produce healthy children that grow up to be good citizens that produce a healthy culture. 

You realize therefore that to worship, or believe in God, is to elevate fatherliness and motherliness to the highest status of respect and honor. To go into a church and see images of the Mother Mary and God as the Father and Jesus as the Son, you have the basic model of a family; and so you have in God belief and God worship, the honoring of and respectfulness toward the family unit. 

So to be the type of atheist that makes fun of religion, rejects "God" and denegrates the Father God, is to join the "satanists," and I don't mean satanist hyperbolically but as a socially psychological label: for modern satanism(s) are ultimately at their core a philosophy of rebellion against the Father Figure, as a philosophy of adolescent selfishness and moral-anarchy as allegorized in the book Lord of the Flies. It is the rejection the Stoic virtues of self-control and win-win synergy and instead it is a philosophy of win-lose and hedonistic selfishness and objectifying others for personal gain. 

So to say you believe in God is to say you believe in not just the ideal family, but as a man it means you believe in yourself as a Man. For, as a man, you biologically feel driven naturally to want to be respected and elevated in status and honored which is what "God" is, the ultimate status symbol of respect and honor, the highest of the highest "leadership roles." To honor God is to therefore honor your own manly drives for territory, status and strength as a protector and provider of your household. Declaring Christ as King is to honor the manly leadership role and "kingly" (householder) status with the woman as the "queen" of the family. 

It is to also believe in the heroic ideal in general, as Christ himself is a model of the hero archetype: as he heroically emptied himself of his ultimate power and status as the Logos, to descend to become a servant-bestower of wisdom and heal people psychologically with a philosophy of unity and joy; which did in fact change society for the better in the last 2,000 years. As belief in God and Christianity has literally changed our moral consciousness for the better and inspired art and literarture, and built cathedrals and universities; and produces good parents and neighborhoods and societies when the ethical principles of Christianity are truly exemplified.

 What has atheism or agnosticism or secularism really offered us that has substantially improved our souls, our culture and society? 

As I see it, Atheism, or the idea that the heavens are empty and thus there is no real accountability nor objective Good or Evil, has directly or indirectly, inspired: Stalin, Pol Pot, Nazis, satanism(s), fourth wave feminism, wokeism, reverse racism, degeneracy, and the decline of Law and Order; with the divorce rates increasing and more fatherless homes, and a rise in selfishness and self-absorption, cynicism, nihilism and philosophical pessimism; resulting in depression and unhappiness from a general sense of existential meaninglesses.  

God belief on the other hand gives one piece of mind and a meaning and purpose in life, resulting in a sense of peace from feeling grounded in a divine Source and lifted up by Hope. 

I think it therefore logically follows that to actively disbelieve in God, and in particular to be antagonistic towards "God belief," and mock faith and ridicule belief is to indirectly attack masculinity and fatherhood in general and by extension it undermines an ultimate meaning in life, an objective morality (as the grounding of law and order), and  removes all sense of hope in something real or "solid," something everlasting.

So that even if one has doubts and questions as to the existence of God, would it not be wise for the person to think deeper about their skepticism, cynicism, or atheism; and consider what impact such beliefs and attitudes has on themselves psychologically and on those around them, and on society at large and on future generations?

Cruciform to Abraform to Modern-forms

 

Continuing from my thesis at the Phases and Strategies of God, what the original priesthood restoration was as I see it is a restoration of what I shall call Abraformity: which means to form your life and purpose in pursuit of what Abraham accomplished, a life of scientific and philosophical understanding, and raising up a righteous seed through your priesthood power (see Abraham 2:11). This was in fact a restoration indeed because in the first century, as I explained on my website here, Roman domination of the Jews had led to a protest theology and a kind of psychological warfare where first century Christians were not to imitate the zealots who used violence to oppose Rome; but were to become what Paul Middleton calls voluntary martyrs, and what some theologians have described as a cruciform mentality. This was the heart of Pauline theology and the gospel of Mark, a mentality of willfully losing your mortal life to gain an immortal life (see Phil. 1:21). Due to this martyr-centrism, there were Antifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity, and thus there was not an emphasis on building a family and having a wife and generating income through a career and focusing on retirement; nor generating a people that would last for generations, as was the focus of Abraham. For in Paul's mind, all mortal existence was going to be annihilated very soon with the imminent return of Christ. I choose to believe that God utilized Paul's mistake in order to generate an urgency and inspire the early Christians to preach a transvaluation of all pagan values based on Might Makes Right through their willingness to bravely die as martyrs for their theological philosophy of love and compassion; in opposition to the Roman ideal of Might Makes Right. The Christians won the battle of ideas and so the cruciform mentality was a very important and a useful strategy during that first century phase of God's People.

What Joseph Smith did was inaugurate the restitution of all things which was a synthesis of the Old and New Testament strategies and phases combined; which is why he wanted to publish The Book of Mormon and New Testament as one book. The early Christians had succeeded in creating a transvaluation of all morality up to that time by implementing a Zion Ideal with a belief in the intrinsic worth of a person as a soul or a child of God. However, while the cruciform mentality was useful in the first century as a strategy during the phase of God's People being oppressed by a foreign ruler, as the cruciform ideal filtered through the fallible minds of Greek Gentile converts who saw the flesh world as evil compared to the pure Platonic Forms in heaven -- and was filtered through the Desert Fathers and the monastic traditions of men like Augustine -- cruciformity was no longer about protesting the first century Roman government and pagan ideology of the first century; but became an antibody, anti-Life, ascetic mentality of bodily denials; so that it became necessary for a prophet to rise up like unto Moses and move the Christianity away from body despising ideologies and toward affirming bodily life in the new centuries of American democracy. I thus see Joseph Smith providing a fraternal order and pro-body theology during Nauvoo, that would affirm the body and organic life and the family unit; while restoring a more healthy sexuality, affirming reproduction, and the joys of the flesh as good and holy through a restoration of Abraformity. 

This is what the original priesthood and freemasonic temple ritual was, a practical theological ritual order for restoring Abraformity. 

Cruciformity to Abraformity to Modernity

What does all this mean for the modern Catholic and Protestant Christian and Mormon-Christian? For me this means that a modern Christianity is a synthesis of cruciformity and abraformity through either postmarriage relationships or serial monogamy or state sanctioned monogamous marriage, whatever one chooses. The first century model of the cruciform lifestyle is really an impractical lifestyle today as there's no Roman government to crucify you for declaring Jesus is Lord instead of saying Caesar is Lord. 

I believe every Christian is endowed with the power to engage in midrash just as Paul and Joseph did. So to be Abraform in modern times need not include polygamy like Abraham practiced, nor polyamory, but simply can mean the mentality of ascending the ladders of life toward enthronement, while building a family and focusing on the future of your children's children, and building a healthy Peoplehood, a culture based on the ideal of Zion.  

The Ascension Path of Deification (Part 1): Re-reading The Book of Mormon as a Theosis Manual (Insights from Adrian P. Larsen)

The following contains my notes and commentary after watching the video presentation The Book of Mormon as Ascension Text by Adrian Larsen. The following is meant to supplement and expand upon Larson's video presentation which I recommend one views first.

Adrian Larsen begins by quoting the following Restoration Scriptures which portrays God's energy or sacred spirit (or the fluid nooma) being given to empower one to become enlightened and/or experience an ascension experience. The ascension experience in brief is where one experiences in a vision the transportation of their soul or spirit to the third tier of heaven where they behold the glory (splendor) of Jehovah on his throne; which illuminates them and thus deifies them (i.e. begins the process of theosis). For more details see James Tabor's essays here and here, and this excellent video here, which video I recommend being watched along with Larson's video before reading the following.

Adrian Larsen explains how The Book of Mormon functions as a manual for achieving a similar ascension experience as did the apostle Paul, Lehi, Nephi, and the Brother of Jared (in the Book of Ether), etc. He begins by quoting The original doctrine of the LDS Church as found in The Lectures on Faith, Lecture 2:25 that reads (emphasis added):

...though our first parents were driven out of the garden of Eden, and were even separated from the presence of God, by a vail, they still retained a knowledge of his existence, and that sufficiently to move them to call upon him. And further, that no sooner was the plan of redemption revealed to man, and he began to call upon God, than the Holy Spirit was given, bearing record of the Father and Son.

Thus we see the vail (veil) separates but the sacred nooma, when gifted, unites one with the Divine Source. He also references Genesis 3:5 (EXB) where Adam and Eve are told:

[For] God knows that if you eat the fruit from that tree [from it], [your eyes will be opened and] you will learn about [experience; know about] good and evil and you will be like God!”

He then references Moroni 7: 32-33 (emphasis added):

... the Lord God prepares the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof; and after this manner brings to pass the Father, the covenants which he has made unto the children of men. And Christ has said: If you will have faith in me you shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me.

Adrian Larson then quotes from the Third Lecture on Faith (emphasis added): 

2 Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3 First, The idea that he actually exists.

4 Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.—For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The original LDS Scriptures had a very clear, concise and simple course of life. Adrian Larson then puts on the screen Joseph Smith's religion in a nutshell through two concepts: 

• Individually: Ascent 

• Community: Zion

At 24 minutes he discusses repentance and asks "What do we have to repent of?" He then points out that in the Book of Mormon it's false traditions that we need to repent of by quoting Alma 12 and how a curse of God had fallen upon them because of the destructive traditions of their fathers. His presentation seeks to replace false traditions with the true path of acension; which he considers the actual knowledge of the right course of life in accordance with God's will, as recorded in the Scriptures. 

Ascending to God's Throne

Larson goes on to explain that there is a consistent description of of the ascension path: starting with a various descriptions in Scripture of a corridor to the divine realm or God's throne, such as the pillar of fire from the tabernacle tent in the Old Testament (as depicted below in these screen shots of his presentation):

Click Image to Enlarge

He then summarizes the symbolism and metaphors of such an ascent experience described in Scripture:

Click Image to Enlarge

Click Image to Enlarge

Note that this is the emphasis in the Seventh Lecture on Faith, that of becoming a holy (set-apart) being and Christ is the prototype of a holy being. A holy being is simply one who can stand in the fiery presence of the divine Father who is a personage of glory (splendor) and firey power per Lecture 5. In other words, the whole message of Genesis to Revelation in the Bible is how to return to God's fiery presence through various modes of ascension to the heavenly throne room of God. So that the Book Mormon acts as an additional manual on ascension in that it elaborates on the ascension method that Christianity in general provides through faith and baptism into Christ.

Christ was the First Fruits to Ascend so that we too could ascend to the Father's throne

I point out in my Godhead series that the prototype of Christ is the duplicate genome of the personage of the Father-Jehovah as a radiant Sun-like personage of spirit (noomatic matter), glory (splendor) and fiery power. In other words, the Deity of Lecture 2, as the only Bupreme Being -- "in whom all fulness and perfection dwells, who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient" (Lecture 2:2) -- molded for Himself a body as Father-Jehovah, a personage of spirit (noomatic matter), in the form of the future earth-born Jesus of Nazareth; as the future earthly form of Jesus was foreseen before the earth was even formed and before Jesus' birth through the Deity's omniscience (see Lecture 2:2). In other words, the Deity as a Sun-like omnipresent Intelligence, Light, or Divine Mind, formed Himself into a personage of noomatic splendor like the fiery Sun as the Father-Jehovah (see Lecture 5). The Father's personage of fiery splendor is why a person must be born again (see Mosiah 5:6-7; 27:25-26; Alma 7:14), i.e. reborn of God's Monogene, in order to be in the Father's presence and behold his splendor (glory) by receiving the luminous genetic genome of the personage of the Father-Jehovah through Jesus, the Only Begotten (Unique Monogene). This is why Moses's face shined after experiencing being in the presence of Father-Jehovah, as it was like being engulfed in divine fire and God's radiant presence basically rubbed off on him for some time. Then on earth Jehovah duplicated his radiant genome by generating the Only Begotten (i.e. Unique Monogene) so that all who are born of God's duplicate genome can become the children (genus) of Christ and thus dwell in Jehovah's fiery presence. 

So that because the earth-born Jesus receives the fulness of the glory (splendor) of the Father, Jesus is spoken of as the Light (the light of Christ) who in 3 Nephi shines on his disciples so they shine as white in brightness as Jesus who is a Sun-like tabernacled personage of glory (splendor) and power; as Jesus is a duplicate of the personage of the Sun-like Father, as a personage of tabernacle (resurrected flesh) that is illuminated by the full splendor of the Father (see D&C 93 and Lecture 5); and thus Jesus is the protype of a human body becoming the same Sun-like species or genus as the personage of the Father-Jehovah (as explained in Lecture #7).

This is why in the King Follet Discourse, Joseph Smith said you have got to learn how to be God yourselves and dwell in everlasting burnings. He is referring to the Sun-like splendor (glory) of the Father-Jehovah who is a fiery luminous presence, and how in order to be able to see and be near God one must be like Him by undergoing noomatic gene therapy; and receive the same fiery Divine DNA through the baptism of fire and the refiner's fire; which begins metamorphosizing one's genetic code into the divine code of a luminous being. All of this is accomplished simply through one's baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost, and/or it is experienced through the path of ascension. In other words, certain persons in the Book of Mormon experience visionary experiences where they ascend to be in the presence of God and are transformed into the same kind of divine body as Jesus in order to be in the presence of Jehovah; meanwhile, others receive the transformation and the beginning process of spiritual metamorphosis or theosis (deification) through the simple method of faith and the baptism of fire.

The Ascension Experience as Confirmation of being Saved by Grace (i.e. Gifted with a Celestial Body)

Just as the apostle Paul's ascension experience confirmed to him that the baptism of fire removed the need or necessity of the Mosaic Law Code for Gentiles (who also experienced the baptism of fire); so too, modern Mormons can rightly feel assured that their own sincerely recieved baptism of fire (in any Christian church), removed any need for any ongoing works-based man-made traditions or policies in the Brighamite sect or any other sect or religious institution. 

If this is true, however, what do we do with doctrines and practices that developed in the 1840s about needing to go to the temple and receive a celestial marriage? I will address this questions in Part (4).

Shared Beliefs About Theosis in Christianity

This video on Eastern Orthodox theology, when combined with the video presentation on the Book of Mormon as an Ascension text here, combined with the research of Denver S. and his emphasis on seeing the Lord face to face, one finds a continuity of views on theosis and the Divine Light. It's clear from this that Joseph Smith was providing the Book of Mormon as a manual for deification by receiving the illuminating Light of Christ; so that one is deified and becomes one of the sons of God and partakers of the heavenly gift.

The Path of Ascension as Seeing the Lord Face to Face as He Is

Returning to the Book of Mormon as an ascension text, we read in Lecture 2:5 (emphasis added):

Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face.

Adrian Larson then states in his presentation:

... the Book of Mormon is a record by and about, those who made the ascent and returned to Christ's presence while yet mortal. It is a lesson manual and a how-to-guide for those who wish to similarly ascend and meet our Lord face to face.

Larson then talks about how the text of the Book of Mormon is about "moving from less holiness to greater holiness as a mystic guide." Again, this "holiness" he speaks of would be the deification process described in Lecture on Faith #7. 

Adrian Larson then explains that the Doctrine of Christ is basically the method of how to 

return to God's presence (the ascent). Faith is to see and act on the situation. Repentance is to change course. Baptism is to go down into the depths, cross water, meaning a new condition on the other side. Then the Holy Ghost and the baptism of fire makes a change.

Larson then quotes 2 Nephi 32:5 (emphasis added):

For behold, again I say unto you that if you will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what you should do

In other words, you are being divinized with the sacred nooma, which teaches you what to do in all things, not the arm of flesh (religious leaders) who's dictates may go against "the dictates of our own conscience" (see Articles of Faith 1:11).

He then talks about a corridor, as in a connection between realms through the veil. 

Larson says that in 1 Nephi 1, Lehi "prayed unto the Lord" and "there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him, and he saw and heard much. .. thus overcome with the [nooma], he was carried away in a vision ... and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne" ... [and he] "beheld his glory" and was "encircled about eternally in the arms of his love." Compare how Alma says, “Methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne” (Alma 36:22). 

Larson then says that later on in 1 Nephi 10, Nephi talks about how "the mysteries of God shall be unfolded to them by the power of the Holy Ghost ..." just like "in times of old ... Wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round." I interpret this as, just as we see in Moses' experience that the Lord and his countenance (face) glowed like the Sun, today's Christians are to also experience God's fiery glory and also have their countenance changed through the baptism of fire; which divinizes our bodies so that we are capable of seeing the Lord face-to-face without any religious barriers and instead having direct contact with God. Thus, again, we read in Lecture 2:5 (emphasis added):

Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face.

Adding to Larson's presentation, Scripture explains that you cannot see the Lord face to face unless you're transformed from a mortal body into a glorified (celestial/starry) body, either temporarily in a visionary state or permanently through the divine DNA. This is the message of the Book of Mormon, that deification (or glorification, i.e. becoming holy through a noomatic "fulness" per Lecture 5) comes only through the merits of Christ and his gifting you (the grace gift of) the divine DNA through the baptism of fire: which transforms you from a "natural man" with an adamic body into a noomatic "personage of glory and power" (per Lecture 5 & 7). So that just like the resurrected Jesus as the "Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8), as the prototype of a holy (glorious) being per Lecture 7, the Christian becomes a holy (divinized) being and thus deified as a personage of holiness by adoption through the seed of Christ (see Isaiah 53:10; Mosiah 15:10-13), thus becoming "begotten sons and daughters unto God" (D&C 76:24), as it is "written, they are gods, even the sons of God" (D&C 76:58).

Larson goes on to explain that in Alma chapter 36, Alma the younger says that after praying for mercy that he could remember "his sins no more" and "what joy and what marvelous light I did behold." This would be the partaking of the divine nature (gift) from the Father of lights through the Son as the resurrection and the Light; with the Light of Christ (the glory of the Lord) as the nooma, had transformed Alma in that moment so that he was able to dwell permanently in God's everlasting burnings. Another example Larson gives of the fiery glory of the Lord deifying a person is later on in Helaman 5 when Lehi and Nephi and the sons of Helaman are "encircled about as if by fire ... and when they saw that they were encircled about with a pillar of fire and that it burned them not, their hearts did take courage. .. and behold, they did shine exceedingly, even as the faces of angels." This is what we would expect to read if the Book of Mormon is about deification or theosis, or the transformation of an adamic body (natural man) into a glorious noomatic body that upon resurrection shall fully shine like the stars and capable of dwelling in the presence of Jehovah's everlasting burnings.

This made me think of the First Lecture on Faith where faith is defined as a principle of action which is based on the belief that God will redeem you and transform you into a luminous personage of holiness (set-apart luminous body of glory) like Christ per Lectures 5 & 7. 

Adrian Larson then quotes 3 Nephi, where Jesus speaks to the multitude and the "heavens open" and "they are encircled about with fire." This fire would again be the fiery glory of the Lord, the divine nooma, the omnipresent Mind of the Father and Son, the shared noomatic Glory (radiant Light and Intelligence) of the Father-Jehovah and Christ, as described in Lecture 5 and D&C 88.

Larson then says that the take-home points on how do you know you're on the Ascension Path? He says it starts with the doctrine of Christ in the Book of Mormon, which is simply repentance (changing course) unto baptism and then the baptism of fire (gift of the Holy Ghost implanting the divine seed and fluid nooma). He points out that none of this is a works-based ordinance, but a process of a humble receptiveness to the indwelling divine nooma. 

Larson then makes a good point by quoting Joseph Smith on the Book of Mormon being the "keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." I never thought of that quote before as being about somebody would get nearer to God as meaning it is a book on how to get closer to God's actual divine presence; as a method of transformation in order to become like God and thus are able to be in His presence with a new divinized body.

As one person writes online named Josh h, on May 9, 2021:

... much of what we [as Brighamite Mormons] are told to believe has very little to do with the Book of Mormon but is instead sourced from the temple, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and General Conference talks. That seems strange to me given that we consider the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book ever.

Even when I was a True Believing Mormon [in the Brighamite sect], I couldn’t understand why the Book of Mormon was so incomplete. Why would the Lord go to all the trouble of preserving for us a record that really has so little to do with [Brighamite] Church teachings and practices? ... (Source)

Now we know why this person was led to think the Book of Mormon was incomplete. This is because today's Brighamite Church Leaders don't want its original meanings to be taught, as it often contradicts the teachings of the Brighamite Brethren. The Book of Mormon is an ascension text which teaches one how to bypass churches and clergyman and have their own ascension experience and face to face encounter with God, either objectively in a vision or subjectively (internally) through a transformation of the heart and being born again. For example, in the Book of Mormon in Alma 32, a religious community is told they don't need to meet together once a week in a synagogue (a church-like indoor assembly of believers) after being kicked out of their own "church" community because of their poor attire, and instead they are told that they can access God anywhere and everywhere. Joseph Smith himself was unwelcomed by the Methodists at one point and so his experience in the woods and seeing a divine Light was I think for him like Paul's ascension to the third heaven; and so Joseph's Book of Mormon is in my view a midrash on the New Testament, designed to help a person, as Joseph puts it, "get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts ...” (History of the Church, 4:461); that is nearer to the fiery throne of God and His splendorous energy; as in, anyone can have direct access to God and receive the baptism of fire and partake of the divine gift (donation) of grace (i.e. deification) through the merits of Christ, by being reborn of God as children (the genus) of Christ (their spiritually genetic Father), without the need for any clergyman or membership in a sect. For, in the Book of Mormon, the authority to baptize and receive the fiery nooma, was simply gifted directly from God and was not handed down from a priesthood line of succession or any church tradition. God Himself simply gave them the power and authority to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Spirit (Sacred Nooma). In other words, just as the apostle Paul sidestepped the "authority" of the "super apostles" and the Jerusalem Church led by James, through his direct access to God and his fiery transformation to a noomatic body (theosis); and Paul's teaching Gentiles how to get nearer to God apart from the Temple Elites and those who sit in Moses' seat of authority prescribing the meaning of the Mosaic Law Code; so too,

 Joseph Smith sidestepped the requirement of a seminary education to minister and Catholic priesthood authority claims, through his own ascension experiences which led I think to his teaching how anyone can get near to God through the Book of Mormon as an ascension text.

Ascending beyond the Shame Cycle

Again, Larson explains that in Alma chapter 36, Alma the younger says that after praying for mercy that he could remember "his sins no more" and "what joy and what marvelous light I did behold."  What is most intriguing to me is that the Spencer W. Kimball and Boyd K. Packer mentality of turning everything into sexual guilt and shame is completely debunked with this more correct understanding of what the Scriptures are actually saying and meaning. Rather than Alma the younger experiencing religious shame and the need to go to a clergyman for absolution -- to do a kind of Catholic-like penance and receive quasi-absolution from another guy in a tie or robe based on the whims and personality of a priest or bishop -- what the Scriptures are actually talking about is an instant removal of all sin permanently; that is the very capacity to sin, for Paul explains the only an adamic body can "sin" (i.e. break the Mosaic "moral" code in Leviticus, or the Kosher prescriptions and circumcision, etc); but a person who supernaturally dies to their Adamic flesh in baptism and receives the genus of Christ through the fluid nooma, is no longer subject to the Mosaic moral law code but follows the ethical code of Christ. For the Christian undergoes a permanent infusion of the noomatic fullness of the Father's divine genes and partakes of His divine nature (DNA). This is why I think he could remember his sins no more, because he passed from death to life (from the "natural man" to a divinized man), being gifted the genes of a life of divine fullness/abundance): as his adamic body began the process of noomatic gene therapy into a luminous noomatic body. 

This is a radically different message than the shame and tame cycle of chasing a "worthy" label (in fear of being labeled unworthy) in the Brighamite sect and in Catholicism for example. This is the "born again" concept, but a better and more accurate understanding of being born anew through the fiery nooma: that burns away all Adamic limitations through the power of the divine Light; so that you become unspotted instantly and redeemed upon baptism through the fiery refining inpouring of the divine nooma. Now that is glad tidings!

Adrian Larson then suggests that repentance should be redefined as basically course-correcting away from the path of foolish errors and man-made traditions and false beliefs, and turning toward the path of scriptural truths and divine wisdom and basically a conscience illuminated by the Light of Christ. 

Larson points out that in Alma it is about not being led away after the tradition of their brethren.  He then discusses 2 Nephi and how Christ says to come unto him and you shall partake of the fruit of the tree of Life in Alma.

The Refiner's Fire

The main insight I had listening to Adrian Larson's presentation was that the pillar of fire and the people in Book of Mormon being encircled and enveloped by fire, and not burning, is about the refiner's fire. What I see is that basically the Book of Mormon is describing a burning away, or the beginning of the process of burning away the natural man (one's adamic nature) which means mankind's natural proclivity to be cowardly, arrogant and selfishness, with a propensity to blindly conform and follow the arm of flesh into false traditions; and instead, as one partakes of the divine nature (genus) through the baptism of fire and does what Jesus said and did (as found in the simple new covenant commandments in 3 Nephi), they are glorified and gifted a celestial body; beginning an ongoing process of deification through enduring hardship and ordeals with courage until at their death and resurrection they resurrect into a fully formed celestial body; which process Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 as the Adamic/natural-man body metamorphosizing into a celestial/noomatic body. As the Book of Mormon puts it (emphasis added):

Alma 5:62: 

I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that you also may be partakers of the fruit [see 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Nephi 8: 10-12, 24, 35 and 3 Nephi 19:30] of the tree of life [compare Alma 32: 37-41, where the "tree" therein is a metaphor of a growing celestial/noomatic body seeded by faith in the implanted divine Word

which is Christ as the fruit (or genus) of gifted eternal life per John 10:10].

4 Nephi 1:3:

And they had all things in common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

The apostle Paul makes it clear that baptism represents a spiritual burial and the death of the adamic body and being reborn with a new Christic body making one a "new creature," as the deified noomatic body is fully metamorphosized into a body of glory at one's resurrection: which again Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 which is about how upon dying, if you had been baptized into Christ (His divine genus) then when your mortal body is buried, that upon resurrection your inner spirit is reclothed (puts on) a new noomatic (celestial) body and ascends to abide among the divine beings in celestial glory (star-like noomatic splendor), which aligns with D&C 76. 

The Book of Mormon explains this process of death to life in glory through noomatic fire. In both the New Testament and Book of Mormon, by being baptized into Christ, we are no longer a permanent mortal "noomatically" speaking, as we're gifted an immortal gene (genus), and thus were no longer under the Mosaic Law Code as the Law Code is for mortals. But you are redeemed (glorified) through the merits of Christ and are implanted with the divine nature (gift of the golden tree of life) and perfected (deified) in Christ and simply called to have the mind (mindset or attitude) of Christ. 

After All You Can Do?

Because the Book of Mormon is written mostly in the context of Jews still under the Law of Moses before Christ is even born, it says in 2 Nephi 25:23 that basically, before Jesus was born, Jewish Christians were saved "after all they can do," meaning they are saved already despite their efforts to perform the Mosaic Law; being already deified (and thus in the process of undergoing eventual full theosis) through their faith (allegiance and trust) in Christ prior to His birth. Then in 3 Nephi, Christ visits the Nephites and the Law of Moses becomes obsolete and Christ says to only do what He says and does which is His only doctrine. Jesus does not provide a Handbook of Instructions or a Manual or Creed, or a "higher priesthood" but instead the power to baptize, impart the Holy Spirit, and perform the Eucharist. Jesus only imparts a simple 4 Part "Doctrine of Christ." If this is the contents of the "most correct book on earth," as Joseph put it, and the way to draw closer/nearer to God, then this must be all we need to know and do to be in the presence of God.

 The Meaning of "White" in the Book of Mormon

This understanding of deification (salvific exaltation), as a burning away process and remolding like in metallurgy, so that one begins to shine and glow "spiritually" like a white-lighted star, helps us make sense of the language of "whiteness" in the Book of Mormon. For, on a careful reading we learn that the talk about being "white," fair, and delightsome in the Book of Mormon, actually means being white-lighted (star-like), fair (spiritually beautiful) and delightsome-to-God with a star-like shining countenance, similar to Moses's shining countenance; and thus we see in Jesus' transfiguration in the New Testament Him shining bright; and then the resurrected Christ shining on the Nephites so that they are as "white" (that is as bright) as Jesus' Sun-like glowing white-lighted radiance. For more details see my document here.

From the Ascension Path to the "Covenant Path"?

President Nelson has popularized the idea of being on the covenant path, which basically means following every step and works-based requirement set fourth by the Brighamite First Presidency: in order to earn a so-called "worthy" status and required temple recommend, in order get into the highest degree of heaven. However, a careful reading of the original Mormon Scriptures points to not a covenant path, but an ascension path through the refiner's fire (illuminating nooma) and the simple path of the Doctrine of Christ. 

This has led me to conclude that the Brighamite sect and its "covenant path" is in my view more of a self-help journey and tribal mentality to better maintain a cultural identity in a kind of fraternal social club which is ran by a corporation. As I see it, this means that while one may benefit from this fraternal structure and high demand religiousness, and I support anyone who chooses that path (which can be a great fraternal structure for raising a family), I don't think it's necessary for one's salvation or exaltation. In other words, I think Christians (including LDS Christians) that have exercised faith unto course-correcting and getting baptized, are already saved and exalted with a celestial body within them; and are thus "already worthy" of a celestial glory upon their baptism and fiery indwelling of the Sacred Nooma, and thus no additional "covenant path" is necessary.  However, that does not mean that such a "high demand path" does not have some psychological and cultural benefits for those in the Brighamite community, as such tribalism better solidifies a deeper sense of identity through the burden of such a "covenant path" and its clear borders, its drawing clear lines in the sand, in order to distinguish the worthy/insider from the unworthy/outsider; thus solidifying a tighter tribal identity and insider group mentality and thus ironically increasing well- being and security for some as insiders; while it also I think actually helps some of the tribal insiders become a better person in such a worthy-craving process, with all its checks and balances and accountability procedures.  Thus, for some people, the "covenant path" as a high demand religion can actually feel safer, more unifying, and even feel empowering. I just don't think that such a path is necessary for one's exaltation; and how much someone thrives in such a corporatized system or is harmed and diminished by it, has a lot to do with one's own subjective experiences, their unique personality type and temperament, their upbringing, and many other factors.

From Mormon House Churches and the Kirtland Temple in the early 1830s to the Nauvoo Era Temple Ritual of the 1840s

The original Mormons met in homes or outside in open gatherings to be a "church" (assemble of believers). Joseph Smith himself never sought to build churches/chapels, only temples; and the temple structure and ritual itself went through evolutionary changes. The first version of the Mormon temple structure and ritual was open to all and functioned more as a meeting house, befitting the original ascension theology.

As I argue in my blog series here, the later 1840s Nauvoo era temple itself was designed specifically with plural marriage in mind and was teaching -- through a masonic midrash ritual -- that Jehovah is a tangible body of flesh and thus God is not a god without parts and passions (as the Catholics and Protestants preach). So if polygamy is no longer practiced today by most Restoration sects, and most Mormons have already been taught and know God has a body, I do not see there being a need any longer for a higher priesthood; which was based in part on the idea of Joseph Smith acting out the role of temple priest with "keys" to lawfully seal polygamous marriages, and instill into the minds of the early saints the idea that God has a body through the 1840s temple ritual. Nor do I see the need today for a higher priesthood acting out the "keys of this priesthood" (as D&C 132 puts it) as "this priesthood" was the lawful right to enact the law of plural marriage (see D&C 132: 7, 19, 44-45, 58-59, 61-65); and the priesthood was also defined as the male seed (i.e. sperm) of the body in the LDS Book of Abraham 2:11. The higher priesthood was thus largely required for the performing of the ritual "sacrifices" (ordeals) of polygamous marriages (and seeding a new generation) on the metaphorical altar in the Mormon temple: in order to psychologically expiate the Augustinian Creeds from the consciousness of the saints, which I argue here had been successfully expiated and thus accomplished by 1890. I therefore argue that there's no longer any need for the Nauvoo era version of the temple ritual as it was a masonic-midrash aimed in part at expiating the belief in a god without parts and passions and overturning the puritanical Protestant attitude and monastic mentality, among most converts to early Mormonism. As Pratt puts it in his essay titled Intelligence and Affection, that the restored gospel corrects

All the monkish austerity, all the sadness and reserve, all the unsocial feelings and doings of priests, and monks, and nuns; all the long-facedness, unsocial sadness, groanings, sighs, and mortifications of sectaries, whether of ancient convents, where men and women retire from all the busy scenes and pleasures of life, to live a life of celibacy, self-denial and devotion; or whether in the more modern and fashionable circles of the camp meetings, or the “mourners bench.”

The fact is that the higher priesthood evolved dramatically from 1835 to 1844, as LDS scholar Gregory A. Prince demonstrates in his book Power from on High. Prince's historical analysis supports my view that the evolution of the higher priesthoods occurred in connection with Smith studying Hebrew in 1835; and his beginning to realize around 1836 that God the Father has a tangible body of flesh and the "Elohim" are gods with sensual bodies, which his First Vision experience in the 1820s did not reveal to him (see page 25 of A Reply to Dick Baer by LDS scholar John A. Tvedtnes [1985]); so that Joseph Smith felt called in the 1840s to restore this original pro-body Hebrew theology and so the 1840s Mormon temple ritual was clearly designed to cause a renewing of the minds of the saints: with polygamy being the dual means to both raise up a righteous seed (branch or qusai-ethnic indenity) and thus produce the Mormon People (through the priesthood/seed of men); in other words, it generated a new Christian culture (or mentally seeded consciousness); with those who would ideally no longer see God the Father as a bodiless nothingness (as in the sectarian Creeds) but a tangible "Man of holiness"; and so  Mormons with renewed minds would, as Parley P. Pratt explains in his essay Intelligence and Affection, basically no longer despise the body, wallowing in shame and guilt like Protestants or Catholics, but see our sensual bodily affections as good and holy. All of which was accomplished by 1890.

 So that with the ending of the practice of polygamy around 1890, it would logically follow that there would no longer be a need for a temple high priest nor temple sacrifices at the altar, which in context was all based on the expiating ritual of metaphorical sacrifices of plural marriages on the altar, and Joseph Smith acting as temple priest. So that in my view, especially since 1890, the pathway to the celestial kingdom has always been through the ascension path and/or the implanting of the divine seed (genus) through the baptism of fire alone; and thus the so-called "covenant path" is not required for celestial glory as one is already made worthy with a celestial body through gracious merits of Christ and His divine genus. So that it's not about obeying a pharisaical list of formulaic do's and don'ts based on the whims of Brighamite Leaders, but about appreciating the grace-gift of God's implanted genus that has generated within us a celestial body; which ideally one appreciates by loving others as much as Christ loved them while faithfully enduring (embracing ordeals) to the end. 

As I see it, Joseph Smith simply took a detour and in the 1840s by providing a temporary masonic ritual in order to raise up a "righteous seed" both mentally and physically, by producing a People with a new pro-body mindset. The handclasps and theater of the temple rite of 1844 was all about enacting a new mindset of "power in the priesthood (seed)" in order to generate a quasi-ethnic Peoplehood via the trial of plural marriages. The aim was for the temple attendee to realize that by passing through the symbolic veil in the temple that God the Father is a Man and not a vaporous bodiless nothingness (which I discuss in more detail in my document The Secret Doctrine of God). Thus, the temple ritual and plural marriages were only a temporary masonic-midrash ritual designed to generate a culture of Mormons with a new consciousness: that is a new or restored belief in the original pro-body Hebrew theology and a belief the original Hebrew God with a body. We know that all of this had been accomplished by 1890 because today in Utah and other areas, Mormons have become a unique Peoplehood with a clear understanding that God the Father has a body, etc. Hence we have evidence that Joseph Smith actually succeeded in raising up a righteous seed or branch (see Jacob 2: 25-30) in the form of the Mormon People with a new attitude about God and the body that is more in line with the original Hebrew theology. In Jacob 2: 25-30 it makes it clear that God commanding of His people to practice polygamy was in order to produce such a seed (a culture or branch), and thus it would only be temporary, and be ended once the raising up of such a seed (culture) had been accomplished. Jacob 2 also explains that monogamy is the norm. Meanwhile, the authority to baptize and perform ordinances in the Book of Mormon comes directly from God and the Holy Spirit, so as I see it the ending of plural marriage around 1890 inaugurated not just the end of plural marriages but the end of the post-1835 higher priesthood; and the temple priest who according to D&C 132 was basically assigned to orchestrate and approve such plural marriages on the altar.

So that today, I believe Mormon-Christians can or should revert back to the original understanding of priesthood in the Book of Mormon as a universal state of a life of holiness modeled after the nonhierarchical order of the Son of God (as Kristeen L. Black explains). Since much of the Nauvoo temple's ritual design was largely based on polygamous theology, I believe it is time to revert back to the more monogamous themes of the Kirkland era temple ritual; and/or worshipping God anywhere and everywhere as prescribed in Alma 32 (as an alternative option to "churching" in a building); and returning to the ascension theology and/or exaltation through the baptism of fire alone and the simple Doctrine of Christ; while restoring the original doctrine of the Lectures on Faith by putting them back into the scriptural cannon and thus respecting Joseph Smith's decision to re-publish the Lectures as scripture in the 1844 edition of the D&C (just before he died).

The "Covenant Path" versus the original Ascension Path

I would argue that while I respect the cultural accomplishments of the corporate Brigamite Church, as I still believe it does more good than harm overall and is a net positive for society; nevertheless, its current emphasis on the covenant path means that it's a rather controlling "high demand religion" (which LDS scholars admit), and yet Jesus said his Way is easy and unburdensome. This high demandingness has it's positives of course and I acknowledge those, however there are also negatives: like, unfortunately, such a worthy-label chasing system can lead to perfectionism, scrupliosity and chronic feelings of inadequacy (LDS apologists acknowledge this but tend to just blame those who don't fit their mold easily); as well as often leading to a holier than thou mentality among some (not all) Brighamites, through their feeling morally superior by merely acting out pious actions of religious conformity: such as feeling spiritually superior by wearing the sacred underwear as required or not drinking coffee for example, which can lead to a thumbing of one's nose at those who do drink coffee or tea or choose to wear non-religious underwear, etc. 

I have also found that the Brighamite "covenant path" can often cause the person to focus less on the ideal of Zion, if they are more primarily focused on themselves (their own piety and "worthy" status), and their immediate family's exaltation (through access to insiders-only temple rituals); that often exclude other family members who are labeled "unworthy" in the culture and blocked from entering the temple for not wanting to have their underwear habits monitored or are sometimes deemed "unworthy" for simply not believing in certain doctrines as literally as others; as John Dehlin experienced being interrogated by President Bryan King, who is clear in the interviews that if John would not conform to King's fundamentalistic/literalist beliefs, then he was going to be kicked out of the "club" and scarlet lettered. Note that post 2020 (and as of 2024), I am not a fan or supporter of John Dehlin and his one-sided, often anti-Christian, atheistic ideological political agenda; yet I know unfairness and unrighteous dominion when I heard it coming from President King.

A Return to Zion-Mindedness

In another video presentation by Adrian Larsen, at the 12-15 minute mark he discusses the illustration below. He illustrates a timeline showing the decline in focusing on actually forming Zion (in the Brighamite sect):

Click to Enlarge

Larson then explains how this happened in the illustration below, as he mentions how Brighamite leaders slowly garnered more power overtime and basically re-wrote Joseph Smith's religion with their own man-made traditions. Even gutting the original Scriptures by removing the doctrine portion of the Doctrine and Covenants (The Lectures on Faith) and for example re-interpreting the Word of Wisdom to now meaning by command and constraint while the scripture itself actually says the opposite: as in, their attitude became, "You will obey us and be behavior-controlled if you want to go to the temple and gain your exaltation and be sealed to your family." In other words, accept our reinterpretation of D&C 89 and other scriptures, or else no priesthood for you or no temple recommend for you, i.e. no seeing your daughter get married in the temple or being able to baptize your son, etc. So he explains in his illustration below, which is to be read from left to right, how Brighamite Leaders overtime moved away from the original meanings of the Mormon Scriptures, and developed their own man-made traditions:

Click to Enlarge

At the 31 minute mark, he makes some important comments on the true meaning of a prophet, seer and revelator, and the real meaning of priesthood; and the importance of Scripture over blind obedience to the arm of flesh. At 35 minutes, he points out that a common theme in all Scripture is the error (sin) of man-made false traditions that are odds at odds with the inspired canonized Scripture. 

Is an Actual Ascension to the 3rd Heaven Required?

In Part (2) I will argue that while a dramatic vision of ascending to the throne room of Jehovah is one way to experience illumination based on Scripture. I argue in Part 2 that Mormon Scripture (which includes the Bible), as well as Eastern Orthodox Christianity, also describes a simpler method of deification through a more internal subjective experience akin to "the still small voice." For not everyone is going to have an ascension vision akin to Paul and others; and instead most people are probably more likely to experience what Joseph Smith describes as pure intelligence flowing into them or what Pratt described as:

[The Holy Spirit] quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands, and purifies all the natural passions and affections, and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates, and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings, and affections of our nature. It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness, and charity. It develops beauty of person, form, and features. It tends to health, vigor, animation, and social feeling. It invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. It strengthens and gives tone to the nerves. In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being.

Or one may experience a simple warm feeling in the heart. All of these are various modes of experiencing the deifying baptism of fire according to Scripture.

Furthermore, Dan Vogel documents on page 119 of his book Charisma Under Pressure, that in 1831, Joseph Smith's "discussion of the powers of the high priesthood ... included the power of physical translation and of entering into God's presence as discussed in Alma 13. ... One purpose of the ... bestowal of additional authority [and 'power from on high'] was to energize the missionary force Smith was about to send out." The Footnote here reads:

As Alma explains, "There were many which were ordained and became High Priests of God ... and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white, through the blood of the Lamb. ... And there were many, exceeding great many, which were made pure, and entered into the rest of the Lord their God" [Alma 13: 10-12].

Note that these references are before the development of the priesthood (which later evolved beyond the mere offices of the Book of Mormon) and were designed only to orchestrate the power of the Holy Spirit in causing deification (theosis) and provide confidence for proselyting. Only later did the priesthood evolve into a hierarchical system, for details see Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood by Gregory A. Prince. As Vogel goes on to explain on page 123, "Before June 1831, the only major division of authority was between elders--the charismatic leaders--and all others: that is, priests, teachers, and deacons (see D&C 20: 38-45). However, it is important to note that while these men held different offices and callings, they had no concept there there were two priesthoods in the church until the introduction of the high priesthood ... At this point, nothing had been said about Smith and Cowdery having been ordained by angels; and nothing about Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. This would come later ..." Vogel goes on to document that in 1831 it was understood that Smith and Cowdery were simply given the power and authority from the voice of God directly who commanded them to ordain each other to the office of Elder (in line with the Book of Mormon model). Thus we see that early on God's power or fluid energy was presented up to 1831 as that which could cause an instant translation (or deification), i.e. a causing of one to immediately become purified spiritually with their garments (souls) washed "white" (that is illuminated or deified) and thus instantly secured a place in the throne room of God to find rest. In other words, they don't see the Lord face to face in this context, but experience the fiery nooma that mystically ascends their souls to God to find rest through a subjective experience.

Go to Part (2)