Saving Knowledge & Educative Ordinances As the Core of The Smith-Pratt Paradigm

"A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge ... revelation...[assists] us, and give us knowledge of the things of God."

 ~ Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:588

 

... The Scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is ... I am going to enquire after God; for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him; ... God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, -- I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another. ...  It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; ... Here, then, is eternal life -- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. ... 

... Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him ... The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. ... Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

~ Joseph Smith, The King Follett Discourse , April 7, 1844 (History of the Church, 6:302-317)

According to the Bible, Moses saved (delivered) the Former Day Saints from Egyptian bondage and provided the "saving or healing knowledge" of the Torah to make them a healthy thriving People; Paul provided the knowledge of a mystery (see 1 Cor. 4:1; Rom. 16:25,26; Col. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 2:20), wherein Gentiles could be saved/delivered from cosmic Sin and Death through the pneuma of Christ; which was basically the hidden knowledge now revealed through Paul: that God could spiritually "glue" (so to speak) Gentiles together and to Israel mystically using Stoic concepts and midrash; and Joseph Smith sought to save/deliver the Latter Day Saints from the body-denying Creeds by teaching "how to be Gods themselves" (as quoted above, which I cover in my blog series Sex, Gods and Zion), through his own scriptures as midrash. 

When Joseph Smith gave this speech above in 1844, he was in my view explaining what he said in 1842 in Article of Faith #3: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Joseph Smith had introduced the law and ordinance of plural marriage at this point in the 1840s. So he was basically saying that through the ordinances of Nauvoo, such as plural marriage, the early Mormons could be saved from Sectarian misinformation about God by obedience to the laws and ordinances of Nauvoo that included plural marriage; so that they could gain saving knowlwedge by "learning how to be Gods themselves." So when we look at the Nauvoo era laws and ordinances in context, as I do on this blog, we see that they were designed to bind the community and teach the Saints how to imitate the embodied sociality of the joyful Gods. 

Note the emphasis on knowledge in the quotes by Joseph Smith above. From this perspective, salvation and/or exaltation is not fulfilling a list of do's and don'ts but acquiring knowledge through "going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one ... from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation ... [having the] privilege to advance like [God] himself ... to advance in knowledge ... [to be] exalted with [God] himself ... so that [Mormons] might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save [people] in the world of [embodied] sprits. [As experiential knowledge] saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge." This is why commandments are given, Joseph goes on to say, and a central commandment in Nauvoo was plural marriage; which I argue here was meant to change the mind of Mormons in the 1800s to stop believing in a God without parts and passions, but to know the true God the Father who has a body, which is substantiated by modern scholarship. This saving knowledge of God's body and the goodness of the sensual body and the joys of intimate affection and fecundity was realized by 1900, so the purpose of plural marriage has been fulfilled and thus now its finished.

The most important "saving knowledge" is the true nature of God the Father as a man with a body of parts and passions. From this stems restored truths as God is Truth. The "True World," the world of God's design laws and the goodness of creation is first understood by knowing God the Father in this way; as basically a  "God who weeps," (as the Givens put it in the title of their book).

I believe that the core of Mormonism is the obtaining of sacred knowledge through first the indwelling pneuma of Christ as a knowledge-infusing material substance or energy; which was how Parley P. Pratt described the Spirit, as a material fluid substance; note the emphasis of the earliest Mormon Scriptures up to 1835 was focused primarily on the indwellimg spirit/pneuma; after 1835, by the 1840s there arose an emphsis on laws and ordinances like plural marriage during the Nauvoo Era, which was a way of learning the true embodied nature of the Divine Beings.

The priesthood in Mormonism was simply a label for the pneuma of Christ, bracketed into offices merely for organizational reasons. Once the law of celestial marriage was fulfilled by 1890, then the need for many of the "laws and ordinance" of Nauvoo were finished/competed (and are not practiced today by most of the Restoration sects). Likewise, priesthood hierarchies are no longer necessary in my view as they always were simply bracketed demarcations into "offices" for organizational reasons of utility; but were simply always just one same pneumatic power of Christ. 

What this means for the Emergent Mormon, is that the whole point of Mormonism was to achieve enlightenment and learn how to advance in exaltation on earth and then in the heavens. With plural marriage ended now never to return in my view, and there being no longer an actual legitimate "prophet, seer and revelator" since Joseph the Prophet of the Restoration, then today Mormonism can move toward a more "humanistic" phase of appreciating the past era of plural marriage as a former way of educating the early Saints to embrace a theology of the body. 

With the prophetic seership window closed since Joseph Smith, then in my view a Mormon today need not blindly "obey" any church leader; "respect" their position sure, within reason, but not blindly follow lest you both fall into a ditch; as they have the principles of the Restoration through the Mormon Scriptures: that are basically about advancing and growing to organic power as an eternal intelligence designed for healthy righteous dominion. 

So all the "rules" like prohibiting coffee, you must wear a specific type of underwear all the time, and no R-rated movies, as commanded in the Brighamite sect are better seen from my point of view as man-made pharisaical attempts at controlling people; and are at odds with the original empowerment philosophy of Joseph Smith's original Mormonism.  

I really like the way the website ReformMormonism.org explains church as it matches my perspective on saving knowledge. After covering Joseph Smith's journey and rejection of the sectarian divisions of his day in the 1820s, the article below states (emphasis added):

Joseph Smith wrote:

“During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them.”

Joseph would later recall that during this period, “he wanted to get religion too [and] wanted to feel and shout like the rest but [he] could feel nothing.”

The result of the revivals for Joseph was not a “conversion” experience, but an awakening of his mind. … he resisted his mother’s attempts to convert him to Presbyterianism. She later wrote that when she would ask him to accompany her to church, he would reply, “I will take my Bible and go out into the woods and learn more in two hours than you could if you were to go to meeting two years.” …

THE REFORM MORMON CONCEPT OF CHURCH

Traditionally one’s sincerity with regard to religion and God has been tied to one’s willingness to join a church, accept its creeds and follow the dictates or council of its leaders. To sacrifice for a church and to serve its interests is, for many people, a test of one’s religious devotion.

Most denominations within worldwide Mormonism go even farther--claiming that their particular denomination is the “only true and living Church,” and that it is impossible to please God without submitting to its ordinances and leadership.

Reform Mormonism rejects such notions, and maintains that every individual is a Free Agent, answerable only to God. The individual doesn’t exist for the sake of the church; the church exists as a support for individuals in their eternal personal progression. While authority in many churches comes from “the top down,” Reform Mormonism maintains that, because individuals have Free Agency and are ultimately responsible and accountable for their own conduct, authority actually issues from “the bottom up.”

In the end, one must be able to stand by one’s own convictions and live by one’s own personal revelation. A church can be a valuable tool and support in one’s life and personal progress. The relationships that one develops with those in a church can bring love, comfort and joy to the lives of all involved. But no religious organization, no ordinance or rite, no particular clergy or creed is required by God.

We progress and become like God by gaining knowledge and by emulating Deity in our character. No single creed encompasses all knowledge. No church or organization has a monopoly on truth. Reform Mormonism fully and unequivocally embraces the following teaching of Joseph Smith:

“Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc. any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all good true principles in the world and treasure them up, or well shall not come out true ‘Mormons.’” ("History of the Church," Volume 5, pg. 517)

To fulfill one’s Divine potential, one must venture beyond beyond the walls and confines of any single church.

REFORM MORMON THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

My eternal progression and destiny are in my hands and mine alone. My relationship with God is personal; it is neither controlled nor mediated by any church, organization or religious leader.

(Source)

I agree with this assessment, that to be a Mormon is essentially to become like God by gaining knowledge of God's true nature and emulating the Deity's character as described in the Lectures on Faith (which were the original doctrine of the LDS Church). As reformmormonism.org then explains in the article Joseph Smith’s First Vision: Forms of Godliness (emphasis added):

The central concept in all ... cultures and religions was that of power: The gods had power, and the people did not. Gods issued commands, and if human did not wish to be destroyed, they were to obey. As mighty and as powerful as the gods might be, they seemed to have very fragile egos: it was as if their only reason for creating man was so that they could have someone over whom they might exercise power and dominion. …

… While in his youth, Joseph Smith--like others around him-- thought of his relationship with God in terms of power, of obedience to Divine commands, and of “being saved” from damnation and eternal punishment. He claimed that in his mid-teens he had seen a vision in which the Lord appeared to him and assured him that his sins had been forgiven. However, as he matured into adulthood, Joseph looked back on this [1832] “First Vision” experience and began to reinterpret it to reflect his evolving ideas about the nature of mankind’s relationship with God.

… What is interesting in [the 1838 account of the First Vision in Joseph Smith--History 1:10-13] is that Joseph does not pray for forgiveness of sins or for an assurance of salvation [as he does in the 1832 First Vision version]. Instead, he prays for knowledge. Also what prompts him to pray is not God’s power but the assurance that God would give to him liberally.

… I was answered that I must join none of them [the sects], for they were all wrong; and the [Divine] Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professor were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith--History 1:18-19)

The [Protestant] churches taught that people were inherently sinful and deserved eternal punishment in Hell. People could be saved, however, if they obeyed God’s command to repent of their sins, to confess their utter dependence on God’s grace and to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Only by obeying this command could one be saved from Hell--for all human beings, because of their Fallen and sinful nature, were incapable of godliness.

According to orthodox Christianity, this was “what one must do to be saved.” However, according to the [1838] First Vision story, God completely rejects such ideas--labeling them “an abomination.”

During the last years of his life, Joseph Smith taught that humans--being in the image and likeness of God--were not inherently sinful but, in fact, were born innocent and with Free Agency (Freewill). By increasing in knowledge, wisdom and virtue, human beings could progress and eventually become like God. … Human progression does not depend on obedience to God, but on obedience to eternal principles of truth--principles to which even God Himself is obedient.

… Reform Mormons believe in a rational God who expects His/Her children to progress. Instead of viewing God in terms of power, God is viewed a loving father or mother. Like any wise parent, God allows each of us to think and act for ourselves--and while this requires that each of us take responsibility for our own actions, always God is there for each of us when needed. For Reform Mormons, God is truly a God of love.

(Source)

Reading these articles at ReformMormonism.org on "saving knowledge" I started to think about the core uniqueness of Nauvoo Era Mormonism: as a spiritual movement away from creedal orthodoxy and body-despising dogma -- based on fear and superstition from the bully pulpit -- and toward instead a spiritual philosophy of bodily affirmation and empowerment through an endowment of knowledge.


This idea of saving knowledge is unique to Mormonism with its doctrine of “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “... teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Joseph Smith himself exemplified the  pursuit of intellectual and spiritual knowledge; beginning with his telling his mother he can go into the woods to read his Bible himself and learn more than listening to the preachers at the Protestant churches. To his Inspired Translation of the Bible, to his diligent study of Hebrew, Joseph Smith was constantly and reverently in pursuit of both intellectual and spiritual knowledge.


As Parley P. Pratt explained in all his books and pamphlets, that the goal is for the premortal intelligence of man, man's soul, to align with the organs of the physical body and the natural sensual affections experienced in the body, in this life. So that Mormonism is not like in many Christian sects that attack the intellect as the enemy at odds with blind faith; as Joseph Smith instead defined faith as the principle of action and trusting in God's designs to produce effects in the real world. Instead of the sectarian fear of science and a “despising of the body,” the Smith-Pratt Movement affirmed the intellect, science, and promoted study and learning. Rather than the sectarian emphasis on repressing the sensual bodily drives, the Smith-Pratt Movement emphasized the organic expression of the sensual affections of the body as good and holy.


So instead of the sectarian idea of discarding the body (the goal being to escape the body as soon as possible as something grose and depraved, escaping the flesh into an immaterial Platonic realm) and repressing the manly instincts and having blind faith; Mormonism encourages men to “arise from the dust … and be men” (2 Nephi 1:21), and pursue knowledge as the Smith-Pratt Paradigm deems materiality as sacred and holy, as atoms are refined spirit matter and the flesh is good as God Himself has a glorified body of flesh.


In Mormonism, being saved is not having blind faith or asserting the mere words of a creed, but taking upon you the name of Christ and bearing each other’s burdens and esteeming your bother and sister in Christ as yourself. The materialism of Mormonism better matches the material spirit of Paul’s theology. From this perspective, “saved” becomes being rescued/delivered from ignorance and gaining enlightenment through the Light of Christ, the divine pneuma that quickens the soul though the Holy Spirit as the Divine Mind (see Lecture on Faith #5 and “LDS Cosmology…Differentiating Holy Ghost & Holy Spirit” by Samantha Chambers). God as intelligence, light and truth thus inspires and illuminates the soul. This is what we call “insight,” “intuition,” or “light bulb” moments, like feeling “inspired” (in-spirited/pneuma-filled).


Paul himself speaks of the Spirit as an inpouring fluid substance (material pneuma), that produces knowledge/gnosis of God’s hidden mystery, the plan to rescue the Gentiles from not having knowledge of the Law/Torah by implanting knowledge/gnosis of the Torah into them through the faithful/experiential lived-life of the Torah fulfilled by Christ. So that Christ’s lived-knowledge of the Torah, as the living-Torah "Word made Flesh" and resurrected to become a Life-giving Pneuma, implants the algorithm or seedbed of the Holy Ideal into the human soul; and man is thus saved by grace (favor): in that God donates this saving knowledge to the client (Gentile) as the Patron Donor; with the expectation, as was the custom of Paul’s day, that the client would automatically return to favor of the Patron, though reciprocal acts of favor to show their appreciation. In other words, God (the Patron) gifts eternal life (the "Torah made Flesh" through indwelling pneuma) to the client (Gentile); and just asks that the Gentile then reciprocate this divine favor by living the higher law of agape love as the Law/Torah is now written on their heart.

So everything is reformulated from this perspective of Mormon materialism. For the Restoration is about restoring the Hebraic theology of bodily and cultural thriving here and now in the material world as material souls endowed with knowledge. Faith becomes a principle of action and the biblical stories become inspiring motivational stories of empowerment to inspire God's People.

The Smith-Pratt Paradigm helps us see that the Nauvoo laws and ordinances of the Restored Gospel were meant in large measure to be educative: providing saving knowledge and an endowment of power for the early day Saints (in the 1800s). They practiced plural marriage in order to bond themselves together as a Pneuma-filled Ecclesia (forming a Peoplehood); with the aquired enlightened knowledge that God the Father had a physical body and sex is good and holy and all physical life is divine as composed of refined spirit matter. The whole point of Nauvoo was essentially educative and transformative toward affirming and celebrating joyfully God’s physical creation as good as God always said it was.


So that it was not about what Brigham Young later turned it into, a dictatorial institution with controlling mechanisms; wherein each succeeding Brighamite leader was able to manipulate the members more and more over time with more and more accumulating controlling ideas and policies (going so far at one point, as to tell the membership that oral sex even in marriage was forbidden). Instead of being puritanical like this, original Mormonism produced by Joseph Smith and the Pratt Brothers was the radical affirmation of the sexual body and the intellect as good and holy. Instead of being codependent on the “Brethren,” original Mormonism was about learning that you are made in the literal image of a sensual God and you have direct access to God’s pneuma and gnosis through revelation; as Joseph Smith was merely claiming to be the leading seer revealing new scripture and guidance which needed approval by Common Consent by the collective Body of Saints. The goal was not blind obedience to some “covenant path” where the member is ultimately unthinking and codependent, but instead original Mormonism was about acquiring knowledge and  enlightenment to advance and grow to power, to full stature and maturity in Christ.


So that the goal in true Mormonism is not groveling before a mindless bodiless sovereign deity where one has no free will and one is saved by asserting certain ideas (as in Calvinism), nor obeying the arm of flesh and controlling leaders in the Brighamite sect. But instead, the goal is simply acquiring the pneuma of Christ at baptism and the gnosis of God through ongoing enlightenment.

Smith was more of a gardener of souls, cultivating Mormons to become a People as Zion. Joseph intended to change their consciousness by experiencing bodily life more fully in order to fully see the true nature of God; which is why he instituted plural marriage (as I argue in my blog post here). What this means from my Emergent Mormon Perspective is that now that the Nauvoo Temple ordinances have done their "job" so to speak, and changed the consciousness of Mormons by this time post 1900; then those ritual ordinances that began in the mid 1800s, including hand clasps and aprons, were designed so Mormons could “learn how to be Gods themselves.” By the 1900s they had learned, through the practice of Old Testament polygamy and the temple ritual that the Gods are tangible and the Creeds were in fact an abomination as they rejected the true nature of God the Father as a man with a body of flesh and He had a wife. So the intent of Nauvoo temple rituals are compleye as the ancestors of the polygamous Mormons fully embrace belief in God the Father having a body. 

So when a Utah-based Brighamite Mormon goes through the temple today, they are acting out outdated rituals that have already served their purpose. The temple altar for example was meant to represent the expiating sacrifice of plural marriage and the aprons signified fertility within plural marriages. All these symbols are thus antiqued at this point since polygamy is now completed and finished. From this perspective, the Mormon garment issued during the temple ritual is also now obsolete and no longer necessary; as its educative function in the original context of polygamy -- being practiced in order to transform the consciousness of the Mormon wearing them -- has been accomplished already by 1890, and so garments are no longer necessary.


So at this point, from the Emergent Mormon Perspective, the goal of a “Mormon” is not to remain under the thumb of the Brethren into middle age but like a college graduate, become part of the Mormon Alumni Association: by becoming an independent thinker as Joseph Smith himself modeled; one seeing their spiritual educative experience in any Restoration sect as just like grade school and college with the goal of eventually graduating toward independence or interdependence, but not to remain spiritually codependent.

See this article on Hebrews 5:12-14: The goal of the Christian life is not to spend decades absorbing "milk" by absorbing only correlated material, but to move on to the "meat." This is why Joseph Smith himself started the School of the Prophets where they advanced in learning to the point of even studying Hebrew. Brigham Young once said:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.

However, if someone chooses to stay LDS (i.e. Brighamite) for whatever reason, I support that and I do believe the LDS Church does more good than harm overall; and there are also ways to be in Brighamite Culture as a member “living on inside of the edge.”

Finally, the idea of being saved by knowledge has precedence in the New Testament. For example, in a Disputed Letter of Paul, it states that wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnōsis) are hidden in Christ (see Col. 2:3; compare D&C 88).


Consider Colossians 1:9 (EXB):

Because of this, since the day we heard about you, we have ·continued [not ceased] praying for you, asking God ·that you will know fully what he wants [L to fill you with the knowledge of his will], ·and that you will have great [L in all] ·spiritual wisdom and understanding [or wisdom and understanding from the Spirit]

Here is what one Christian website says on this divine knowledge:

Col. 1:9...calls to mind the words of Jer. 17:8 and Psalm 1:3 that portray the people of God as people of His Holy Word: "He is like a tree planted by flowing streams, it yields its fruit at the proper time…" (Ps. 1:3). When men and women regularly nourish their hearts with the perennial streams of God’s Word [Scripture], they will become fruitful regardless of the circumstances of life (cf. Dan. 11:32).

THE ROOT AND THE TRUNK, “FILLED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL"...

[Col. 1:9]: "… to fill you with the knowldege of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding."

The tree figure seen in the terms, “bearing fruit and growing,” reminds us of a very important principle in life, that of the root and the trunk. You simply can’t have fruit without the root to provide the life sustaining nourishment needed and a strong trunk to give stability so the fruit doesn’t lie in the dirt or the trunk doesn’t break off and cut off the supply of nourishment from the fruit …

… Throughout this epistle, the apostle used biblical terms like knowledge, filled, spiritual, understanding, and wisdom. … The Colossians had been told that they needed more knowledge and deeper wisdom beyond what they had been taught regarding the person and work of Christ. Now Paul shows them they indeed needed more knowledge, but the true knowledge of God’s will by means of all spiritual wisdom and understanding. …

… This was precisely the Lord’s point to the two disciples on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:

24:25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 24:26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 24:27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27). (NASB)

… In the New Testament, this adjective most often means ... “pertaining to the divine Spirit” (pneuma)” whether of things or persons. Here in [Collosians] 1:9, it means a wisdom and understanding given by the Spirit. … believers need the wisdom and understanding that is found in the Scripture and is taught by the Holy Spirit, an important theme of the New Testament (cf. John 16:7-15; 1 Cor. 2:6-3:3; Eph. 1:17f; 3:16-19; 1 John 2:20, 27). …


… what is meant by “wisdom and understanding”? "Wisdom" is the Greek sophia. Sophia refers to the basic, fundamental precepts, the facts and first principles of any subject. In this context, it refers to the basic principles and truths of the Word that every believer should know and live by. …

Source

Also see this article that explains knowledge as a form of salvation. The Gnostics denied bodily life, and so Mormonism is not gnostic. As this website explains:

SPIRITUAL GNOSIS = that which comes from knowing and experiencing Christ through obedience to His Word. Remember that the only way you will receive this spiritual gnosis is by being sold out to Him. In John 7:17 Jesus declared that...

"If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know (ginosko - know by experience) of the teaching (doctrine = didache [word study]), whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself."

This verse teaches a powerful principle: if you ''do'' (obey) the teaching, then (and only then) will you really "know" the teaching!

… Luke 11:52:

"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key (the correct interpretation of God's word) of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered (koluo [word study] = cut off, restrained, prevented) those who were entering."

Comment: This context also refers to spiritual gnosis [knowledge] regarding salvation. Legalistic teaching always takes away the key to this vital gnosis. Not only does legalism keep one from (to extend the metaphor of a "key") opening the door of salvation initially (Jn 10:9) but also hinders the proper use of the gnosis which is vital to daily living of the supernatural in Christ (2 Co 5:7, Gal 5:7, 3:1, 2, 3)

… Romans 2:20-note a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment (morphosis [word study] = an outline or sketch) of knowledge and of the truth.

Comment: Here gnosis refers to "divine" (spiritual) gnosis, knowledge of God's desire for man as laid out in His law which is "holy and righteous and good." (Rom. 7:12-note)

Romans 11:33-note: Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

Romans 15:14-note: And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.

… 1 Corinthians 1:5: that in everything you were enriched (ploutos = wealth, richness, possessions and gives us our English plutocrat, “a very wealthy person"!) in Him (in Christ), in all speech and all (all that was necessary to live this Christian life = nothing lacking) knowledge, …

Comment: Speech refers to outward expression and gnosis refers to inward comprehension. As Albert Barnes says this gnosis refers to "the knowledge of Divine truth. They had understood the doctrines which they had heard, and had intelligently embraced them." In short, they had apprehended the gnosis which related to "the great and deep things of God". And since they had "all speech", they had the ability which God had given them to communicate this spiritual gnosis to others. This reference to speech and knowledge also alludes to the spiritual gifts with which the Corinthians were so richly endowed (cp 1Co 1:7, 2 Co 8:7).

“Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15-note).

Knowledge by itself brings arrogance, not maturity. Division in the church may be caused by problems of behavior as well as problems of doctrine. When some believers insist on exercising their liberty without regard for the feelings and standards of fellow believers, the church is weakened and frequently divided.

1 Corinthians 12:8: For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

1 Corinthians 13:2: If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.... 8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

1 Corinthians 14:6: But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?

2 Corinthians 2:14: But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge (spiritual gnosis, gnosis of the gospel, the way of salvation) of Him in every place.

2 Corinthians 4:6: For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge (spiritual gnosis brings supernatural light into a lost person's soul so that in this context the gnosis alludes to the Good News of Christ, the light of the world Jn 8:12, cp Paul's experience Acts 8:3, 4, 5, 6) of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

2 Corinthians 6:6: in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love

2 Corinthians 8:7: But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you, see that you abound in this gracious work also.

2 Corinthians 10:5-note: We are destroying (kathaireo [word study]) speculations (logismos [word study]) and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

… The saints are to have an experiential knowledge (gnosis) of the love of God “in order that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans or Logos or Word Search)

… Compare - Ecclesiastes 12:9: In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge (Lxx = gnosis); and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs.

Here are some other uses of gnosis in the Lxx...

1 Sa 2:3 "Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the LORD is a God of knowledge (Lxx = gnosis), And with Him actions are weighed.

Psalm 119:66: Teach me good discernment and knowledge (Lxx = gnosis), For I believe in Your commandments.

… Proverbs 2:6: For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge (Lxx = gnosis) and understanding.

Proverbs 8:10: "Take my instruction and not silver, and knowledge (Lxx = gnosis) rather than choicest gold.

Source


From this we can infer that the experiential knowledge (gnosis) provided by plural marriage and the Nauvoo temple ritual, provided the early Saints in the 1800s with the true knowledge of God as a man with a sensual body of flesh and bone; and that God does not despise the body and the instincts driving the procreative act (as Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught); but instead the experience of engaging in multiple procreative acts through plural marriages awakened the minds of the early Saints to the true nature of the sensual Divine Beings and to see the sexual body as good and holy. From this experience as a People they learned to see procreation as an imitation of the creativity and creative expansion of the Gods themselves: Who don't procreate or birth souls but select  souls (or intelligences) and provide them with sculpted clay bodies on an earth in which to dwell; so that they too can recieve saving and exalting gnosis and indwelling pneumatic energy: in order to advance from an Intelligence into a God.

Is Revelation obtained Only through Brighamite Church Presidents? Or is Revelation a Gift of the Spirit available to All Mormons?

 In their statement of beliefs, the Mormon Restoration branch, Church of Jesus Christ With Elijah Message, states:

Divine revelation continues in modern times consistent with examples in the scriptures. These are given in dreams, visions, signs, gifts, and His word to whomever He chooses. (Also see Belief #7) (Joel 2: 28; I Cor. 12: 3-11; Alma 9: 21; II Nephi 26: 13, II Nephi 29; Moroni 10: 8-24; Mormon 9: 7-8)

Source: Taken from their Articles of Faith (Reference: “Faith and Doctrine,” The Church of Jesus Christ With the Elijah Message, Headquarters at Monongahela, Pennsylvania)

Thus, we clearly see from the verses quoted above (which I provide links to) that anyone in the church as the body of Christ has access to the gifts of the Spirit. The apostle Paul and Joseph Smith were simply more advanced experts in receiving revelation. See the article 1 Corinthians 11:3–16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation by Christopher Mount. Based on this article, one could argue that when Joseph Smith was alive he was the "spiritual master" at that time.

This is why Hiram Page was scolded in Doctrine and Covenants Section 28 for trying to create confusion and disorder by claiming revelations as a seer himself, which contradicted Joseph's revelations.

After Joseph Smith's death, one of his alleged successors, Brigham Young never claimed to continue the position of revelatory "spiritual master" as was Joseph the Prophet. Thus the "presidents" of the Brighamite sect for many decades avoided being titled "prophets, seers, and revelators," and were called only church Presidents. Today, any Mormon (Latter Day Saint), as the collective body of Christ, I believe can claim revelation and by their fruits you shall know them.

Mormon Scripture through the Smith-Pratt Lens

 I became aware of the importance of which lens you interpret Scripture from after reading Marcus Borg's books and how he emphasizes the Historical-Metaphorical interpretive-lens. I then read a book on The New Perspective on Paul and the author pointed out the most Christians are reading the New Testament though the Augustine-Luther interpretive-lens which skews their view from the truth.

The Smith-Pratt Paradigm and an Emergent Mormon Perspective In nutshell:

Emergent Mormonism is part of what I call the Scripture-Focused paradigm, with such groups having produced their own sets of Restoration Scripture Editions.

The Smith-Pratt Paradigm (1838-1850) is distinctly different from the Smith-Rigdon Movement (1830-1837) and what I call the Brigham-McConkie Paradigm (1850s to present). I discuss in more detail what makes the modern Emergent Mormon (operating through the Smith-Pratt Paradigm) distinctly different from the Brighamites and other Restoration Branches here. 

Parley Pratt and Mormonism:

Parley Pratt was a major contributor to the formation of Mormonism. See:

•  No Small and Cramped Eternities: Parley Pratt and the Foundations of Mormon Cosmology by Terryl Givens

• Salvation through a Tabernacle: Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, and Early Mormon Theologies of Embodiment by Benjamin E. Park

• The Riches of Mormon Materialism: Parley P. Pratt’s “Materiality” and Early Mormon

Theology by Benjamin E. Park and Jordan T. Watk

• Rational Supernaturalism: Early Mormonism and EnlightenedRomantic Rhetoric

Benjamin Park

• "Reasonings Sufficient": Joseph Smith, Thomas Dick, and the context(s) of Early Mormonism by Benjamin E. Park

Reading Scripture through the Lens of the Jesus as Revealed in Mormon Scripture 

The Emergent Mormon Perspective follows in the footsteps of Christians like Brian McLaren who focuses on a metaphorical interpretive method and having Jesus interpret the New Testament. So following this interpretive stance with scripture, I see the Jesus of 1840s LDS revelations through Joseph Smith as the interpretive lens through which to interpret all Mormon Scriptures (the Standard Works).

According to the following review of his book, Brian McLaren explains in A New Kind of Christianity

that [Protestant] Christian theology has misread the Bible by replacing the dynamic, engaging God (elohim) of the scriptural narrative with a static, transcendent Greco-Roman God (theos) who cannot tolerate a nonperfect world. One’s quest must begin by reconceiving the story line with which believers have all been raised: Eden, the Fall, condemnation, salvation, hell, and heaven—what McLaren calls the six-line Greco-Roman framework. The dread cosmic dictator of such a worldview “is an idol, a damnable idol” (p. 65). McLaren describes this traditional Christianity as “soul-sort narrative” (p. 215), meaning that the purpose and end of creation is the separation of souls into heaven or hell. Instead, he argues, Christians must discover the true biblical story by reading Jesus “forward” through the lens of Adam, Abraham, and the unfolding Jewish vision of life rather than “backwards” through Paul, Augustine, and the traditional church. The “more mature,” “responsible” way to understand the biblical message (p. 76) is not as a “constitution” but as an “inspired library” with its many genres of literature (p. 83). Scripture is intended (and inspired) to open horizons, engender dialogue, and “stimulate conversation” (p. 92).

I agree with this approach because it sidesteps the demand for a perfect systematized creedal version of Jesus and instead you are looking at the Bible as a library that begins a conversation and how it is about a larger sweeping narrative of dominion and dynasty.

The Problem with Creeds

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” ~ Joseph Smith, Articles of Faith 1:11

"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day-Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (Joseph Smith, Discourse, April 8, 1843).

“I believe that a religion is instituted of God and that men are amenable to him and to him only for the exercise of it unless their religious opinion prompts them to infringe upon the rights and liberty of others. But I do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men nor dictate forms for public or private devotion. The civil magistrate should restrain crime but never control conscience, should punish guilt but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” (Joseph Smith, Brandywine, Pa., to the Editor of the Chester County Register and Examiner, Jan. 22, 1840).

(Source) 

The reality is that anytime you attempt to interpret the Bible through the lens of a Creed and demand perfect formulaic creedalism or systemitzed theology, you are going to still end up with conflicting interpretations. For example, Paul's Jesus is different from James's Jesus. The Markan Jesus is different from Luke-Acts version, which both conflict with the version of Jesus in the book of Revelation. Meanwhile, Brighamite Mormons tend to interpret Mormon Scripture through the lens of what I call the Brigham-McConkey lens: which lens has been corrupted by Brighamite leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith's dogma, Boyd K. Packer's embarrassingly mockable sermon My Little Factory (which became a pamphlet), and Spencer Kimball's harmfully shaming diatribe The Miracle of Forgiveness, etc. So everyone is picking and choosing and favoring a particular "creed" of their favorite Mormon leader.

As for me, I choose to go with the creedless ideal of the founder of Mormonism (Joseph Smith) and the Jesus revealed through Joseph in the 1840s. Along with his right hand man (theologically) at the time, Parley P. Pratt, who acted like the apostle Paul in articulating a coherent Mormon theology based on Joseph Smith's revelations and his own personal correspondences with Joseph during this time in the 1840s; while Pratt's theologizing was not meant to be a perfectly systematized creed or dogma but was more focused on being inspiring and explorative.

So in brief, I interpret all Mormon Scripture through the interpretive lens of the Jesus revealed through Joseph Smith in the 1840s and the philosophical insights and teachings of Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt. This is the core of the Emergent Mormon Perspective.

The Smith-Pratt Paradigm as the Lens of Bodily Life Affirmation

Building off of McLaren's lens of reading the Bible forwards (from Abraham to Jesus) and not backwards from Augustine and Lutheran to then Jesus (so that Augustinian bias corrupts your interpretation), in my Emergent Mormon Paradigm, I choose to read Mormon Scripture forwards from Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt's theology of the body, as presented in the 1840s (what I call the Smith-Pratt lens).

 From this perspective, Mormon Scripture can be seen as progressing line upon line, precept upon precept, toward the final crescendo of a life affirming theology of the body.

So we see Mormonism growing layer upon layer. First, Joseph Smith felt inspired to orate the contents of the Book of Mormon through the traditional Protestant culture of his day, which included the ideas of Jonathan Edward and other Protestant theologians. Then, during his inspired translation of The Bible in the early 1830s, he turned to Adam Clarke as a springboard for ideas. Thus he mostly remained within the Protestant tradition and anti-body Creeds during the Smith-Rigdon phase (from 1830-1835).

All of this began to change around 1835 when Joseph Smith received greater light and knowledge after studying the Hebrew language and learning that the word for God in Hebrew was Elohim, meaning sometimes God singular but also meaning divine beings (plural), as in the "gods/holy ones" in God's Divine Council. This understanding by the way has been corroborated by recent scholarship. 

This also led to his believing that he received knowledge of God's true nature as a man of flesh and bones, which has also been corroborated by recent scholarship. Thus, Joseph's insights in the 1840s best represents current objective biblical scholarship. In my view, these revelations simultaneously deal with Nietszche's criticisms of Lutheran Christianity being anti-Nature and a despising of the body; for Joseph's restored gospel and the restitution of all things, was in the end in the 1840s a return to the original Hebrew theology in the Bible: where God the Father had a body and our physical body was venerated and honored, not condemned as unholy; as found in monastic versions of Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

The Lens of Joyful Fun and Laughter among Genuine Friends

"Every man should esteem his neighbor as himself" (Mosiah 27:4)

 

"And let every man esteem his brother as himself ... And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself"(D&C 38:24–25)

Dr. Paul Dobransky M.D. defines friendship in psychological terms as: "Consistent, Mutual, Shared Positive Emotion." The Mormon Scriptures by Joseph Smith above say basically the same thing but in a more Christian way. Joseph Smith said “Friendship is one of the grand fundamentals of Mormonism.” Someone created a word cloud on the most popular words in the LDS hymns, which are "fervently" and "joyfully." This is what Original Mormonism was about, mutually shared fervent joyfulness among Christian friends.

So a key difference between the Smith-Pratt paradigm and the Augustine-Lutheran lens and say the McConkie lens, is that Joseph's "Mormonism" (or LDS Cristianity) was more joyful as Joseph himself  had a cheerful disposition. When I watch talks of McConkey I do not see a fun and joyful person like Joseph Smith was. In the article Joseph Smith and the Spirit of Optimism, Mark D. Ogletree  Joseph writes:

Joseph was described by his contemporaries as being happy and cheerful. In the 1838 account of the First Vision, Joseph mentioned that he had a “native cheery temperament” (Joseph Smith—History 1:28). Similarly, a neighbor described Joseph as “a real clever, jovial boy.”

The article also talks about how Joseph was known for joking around and being playful. Joseph was actually critical of the austere and rigid demeanor of the Ministers of his day. He would often deal with their serious dogmatizing by challenging them to some kind of fun and playful competition. He would often disguise himself in an attempt to see if new members would accept him in plainness of clothes rather than formal attire and looking "saintly."

After reading the book The Humor of Christ by Elton Trueblood, I realized that the Smith-Pratt Paradigm is also a lens of interpreting Mormon Sripture in a way where one is looking for examples of the parables of Jesus where they have some comedic effect. So that scripture is not this boring and monotone King James language phenomenon, but actually the original texts in Greek are full of liveliness and humor that is missing from Elizabethan English. 

I then combine these insights with Joseph Smith producing in his restoration of the gospel, a smiling Jesus in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon, with Jesus in fact smiling again twice onto his disciples in the Americas, thus emphasising the happy and cheerful character and nature of Christ. 

So that one sees that a distinguishing feature of the Christ revealed in Mormon Scripture is that he is a happy smiling Messiah, which supports the Fortunate Fall theology as encapsulated in 2 Nephi 2: 25 that states, "Adam fell that men might be; and menare, that they might have joy." So that Mormonism is at its core a life philosophy or spiritual lifestyle that ideally emphasizes having fun and experiencing joy with friends as one spiritual family united in Christ: with Jesus as the model of true joy as the true vine, who for example turned ritual purity jars of water into party wine in the Gospel of John.

Furthermore, the references to "loud laughter" in Mormon Scripture, in context has more to do with adolescents during church services in the 1800s being rude and boisterous. Mormonism in no way condemns respectful humor and laughter; and in fact the Mormon tradition honors and respects the memory of J. Golden Kimball, an LDS Seventy (Leader), who often used humor and even profanity to make light of situations and provide joy and laughter. So the Smith-Pratt paradigm is also the lens of humor and finding joy. 

Reading Parley P. Pratt's autobiography, I did not see in his personality any joylessness or sanctimoniousness, but instead a man of frankness, fun and adventurousness. When I read the positive spiritual philosophy in his book, Key to the Science of Theology, I can feel his zest for life, for materiality or the physicality of life in the body and adventure. I do not see this modeled today as much in the rigid and boring correlation material in LDS Chapels. 

A Bullet Points Summary of The Smith-Pratt Paradigm and the Emergent Mormon Perspective:

LDS Scripture as Expressive Art Toward Growing The Garden of the Good, A Healthy Family, and Inspiring Us on Our Hero's Journey

The following simple bullet point outline with links to my blog posts and articles best summarizes the Emergent Mormon Perspective and The Smith-Pratt Restoration Ethos:

• I begin with Universal Laws/Principles (as articulated by Stephan Covey)

• I hypothesize that these cosmic Principles could be the result of "Nature's God" (referenced in the U.S. Declaration of Independence), or Parley Pratt's "Great God," or John Spong's conception of God as "the Source of Life, the Source of Love and the Ground of Being."

• I perceive an Algorithm of the Good, or the "Divine" as the Good Operating Dimension (G.O.D.) that Produces The Garden of the Good (Ecclesia). Or what Timothy R. Jennings calls The Design Laws of God.

• In Huston Smith’s book, Why Religion Matters, he gives a wonderful illustration below representing how one can view "God" as "The ineffable God" beyond comprehension ("the cloud of unknowing"), yet experienced through God's knowable attributes:

• In fact, this was Joseph's focus in the Lectures on Faith, the attributes of Deity, as he goes on to define faith as a "principle of action" in Lecture One. Then in Lecture Seven he emphasizes being empowered by God's attributes as a joint heir with Christ, receiving the same "dominion, power, authority and glory, which constitutes salvation; for salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses, and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him ..." and to "reign in his kingdom" is to have "his power." (Lecture 7: 9, 10). Note the clear positive psychology and empowerment language.

• Building from this perspectivist faith-stance further, I see what I call the Divine Filter having a positive psychological effect, in contrast to a Nihilistic Filter; Positive Psychology and Mormonism have a lot in common pragmatically; and believing in Free Will makes us better people than believing in Determinism (see There’s No Such Thing as Free Will: But we’re better off believing in it anyway by Stephen Cave, Issue June 2016); And our American courts of law operate effectively based on the supra-natural assertions in the Declaration of Independence that we are basically endowed by our Creator with inalienable Rights; and it's asserted in American Law that we have the ability to choose Right from Wrong and thus be judged as guilty or innocent if accused of a crime, which produces Law and Order and a civilized society.

• The Vision of Zion is a powerful ethical unifier for a civil society and group cohesion.

• Mormon Scripture is thus Ethical Art that embeds into one's psyche these Universal Principles, Attributes, the Algorithm of the Good, The Divine Filter, and the Vision of Zion, through Mormon scripture's: Stories, Positive Masculinity & Healthy Families, Hero Journey(s), Poetry, Literary Art, and Parables.

• Scripture is thus in brief a "Love Poem to Reality," i.e., similes of reality, artistic interpretations of our perceptions; the symbolic language of dreams as theological expressionism. 

So with this brief outline we see Mormon Scripture is not a fixed and "stiff" phenomenon, but a plastic, artistic, flowing creative expressive art. LDS Scripture thus has a rhythm to it, an ebb and flow of beats and tempo, a kind of jazz harmonic, with an experimentation of ideas line upon line, precept upon precept; with each experiment and "jamming session" of revelation building upon revelation, with formations and reformations. In this organic revelatory expanding art form, there is the consistent and stable themes of universal laws or principles, the Algorithm of the Good or God's Design Laws, heroic journeys, the divine filter, and the Dream of Zion, etc.; which are expressed not scientifically in laboratory language but poetically and parabolically in dream language. Thus embedding a Restoration Ethos that affirms physicality, specifically God the Father's physicality and therefore by extention this affirms our physicality, and thus our sexuality, and intellect, and the family unit as good. So that 1840s Abrahamic Expansionism was a midrashic metaphor for affirming biological life itself as good until plural marriage served its purpose and permanently ended (as I argue in my core thesis The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The Mormon People. So there is the consistent theme of building Manly Strength and building Zion while thoughtfully bearing each other's burdens and esteeming your neighbor as yourself becoming ideally the pure in heart (see Moses 7). 

The Emergent Mormon Paradigm is not a fundamentalist or scriptural-literalism perspective. But is the viewpoint of a developing, crescending theology, that changes over time artistically while the same themes remain of universal principles and the Hero's Journey and the Ideal of Zion, etc. As Terryl Givens has argued in his many books and lectures, Joseph Smith was working through his Protestant milieu and Methodist and Calvinist ideas, but eventually he transcends his Protestant past to create something new and different: Restored Christianity.

From this perspective, the apocalyptic Protestant language in the beginning of Mormonism in the 1830s was merely the scaffolding or substructure upon which Joseph was slowly building toward his own more fully restored painting of Reality; as he walked to the beat of his own drum while tapping into the music of the spheres to create artistically his own unique religion-making masterpiece; that would affirm earthly physicality, biology, and rextore Hebrew spirituality with Pauline insights into a compound-in-one; through his life-affirming theology of the body in the 1840s. 

In other words, when I read Mormon Scripture, especially the early revelations in the D&C or Book of Mormon, I read it through this Emergent Lens. So when I read Augustinian concepts or Protestant language in early LDS Scripture, I see it as mere scaffolding, like a construction project later being renovated and a new layer of construction is formed over the previous constructions. Think of it like somebody rebuilding an old model car with new modern features. So that many words in the early 1830s LDS Scripture are reinterpreted and concepts redefined in the 1840s through the Smith-Pratt paradigm. For example, the phrase "natural man" was redefined in the 1840s to mean something more along the lines of a mind subject to the sectarian Creeds.

So basically I read Mormon Scripture emergently, chronologically, expandingly, as if it's growing toward a crescendo in the 1840s. So I don't take all of it literally but mostly metaphorically, and I read it less supernaturally and more poetically and historically: which provides me a greater appreciation for what I am reading knowing the historical context and intentions of the words to usually uplift and inspire and unify and empower. This provides me a greater appreciation for its artistic theo-expressionism, as symbolic art of a metaphorical nature, in order to work upon the heart and mind of the reader toward ultimately affirming Life; as the consistent theme is individual empowerment on one's hero journey through the algorithm of the Good, universal laws, and the dream of Zion, etc. So I no longer read any scripture and ask if it's literally true or not, I instead ponder the energy behind the words and concepts, and how the ideas and stories can work toward the flourishing Social Garden, a Healthy Family, and one's own Hero's Journey.

A simple way to distinguish The Emergent Mormon Perspective (and The Smith-Pratt Lens) from other scriptural interpretive lenses, is for me to break down and summarize the most common interpretive lenses in most Christian churches and Mormon branches today:

Augustinian-Lutheran Lens: This is the interpretation lens of most churches today where they read the words of The Bible through the interpretations of Augustine; in particular his emphasis on Original Sin and a heavy emphasis on seeing human sexuality as inherently cursed and depraved. With this "lens" comes the view of theological predestinationism (a type of determinism that denies free will), a justification of torturing heretics, and "eternal conscious torment" in "hell" for Orwellian Thoughtcrimes. Martin Luther continued most of these Augustinian ideas, as did Calvin.

Eastern Orthodox Lens: The Eastern Orthodox interpretive lens departed from the Augustinian interpretive trajectory in many ways; and has many things in common with Mormonism as covered in books by Terryl Givens.

Wesleyan Lens: Methodism

Ellen G. White Lens: Seventh Day Adventists

Charles Russell Lens: Jehovah's Witnessess

Stone-Campbell Lens: The Disciples of Christ or Campbellites.

Smith-Rigdon Lens (1831-1838): Rigdon was influenced by the Campbellites and Joseph was influenced by the Methodists early on in the early 1830s. 

Smith-Pratt Lens (1839-1850s): Parley P. Pratt and Joseph Smith collaborated theologically and philosophically during the Nauvoo period and together they moved Mormonism even further away from the Augustine-Luther Lens and Campbellite Lens; with a more materialistic/physicalist theology of the body in the 1840s; which in my view was designed to liberate the Saints (Mormons) from puritanical oppression and the Augustinian despising of the body based on an incorrect view of the Godhead; thus ideally liberating Mormons with an inspiring probody spiritual-physicalism.

Rigdon-Emma Lens: Emma's Methodist Pietism and Rigdon's views were at odds with the Smith-Pratt Lens. So Emma's son Joseph Smith III eventually became a president of the Reorganized LDS Church (Community of Christ or RLDS) and Emma remained a member of that church/sect; while Sidney Rigdon started a church movement known as the Rigonites. The Rigdon-Emma Lens is basically the interpretive lens of maintaining a more "Protestant theology" and seeing the "flesh" (the physical) as at odds with the "pure platonic forms," as a more pietist or puritanical point of view; in contrast to the sensual spiritual physicalism of the Smith-Pratt Lens.

Brigham-McConkie Lens (1860s-to-present): Brigham Young championed the Smith-Pratt Lens for the most part, but he invented several theological ideas like the Adam God Doctrine, which were at odds with Joseph Smith's original theology. Joseph Smith was also more experimental and artistic while Brigham Young was perhaps better at organizing and creating structure. This pragmatically provided a way for the Smith-Pratt Lens to spread and flourish among the Mormon People; but unfortunately, as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts, and corrupts absolutely," and so the power and control clearly went to Brigham Young's head; as he systematized a way of maintaining excessive control of the membership through a Dictatorial Mindset. Unfortunately, the Utah-based Brighamite sect's leadership has maintained this same controlling and dictatorial mindset while adding more and more pharisaical "control mechanisms" as time went on into the 1900s; culminating in a controlling correlation system (as a form of "Thought Control"), an unofficial dress code at church, and eventually the rejection of the Smith-Pratt Lens for a more Protestant-like puritanical lens by the year 1900; as successive Brighamite Leaders joined Protestants in the 1900s in producing a shame-based Purity Culture: even going so far as the First Presidency declaring oral sex to be an impure and unholy practice (even in marriage!); combined with reinterpreting the the Word of Wisdom so that the Brighamite leadership can control what food and drinks goes into a member's body; making such "behavior control" a requirement to go to the temple (when it was never meant to be implemented by commandment or restraint). Many Brighamite-church Presidents together produced this mindset and interpretive lens, but the one who was most vocal and impactful in cementing this approach to rigid "Mormoning" was Bruce R. McConkie, and so I call it the Brigham-McConkie Lens.

How The Emergent Perspective is Different from the Brighamite Paradigm

The Emergent Mormon Perspective sees the end of polygamy in 1890, as meaning also the end of the entire Nauvoo temple ritual which was designed specifically with polygamy in mind. Hence the temple ritual as practiced today by some LDS sects, like the Utah-based Brighamite sect, are operating an outdated ritual which became obsolete in 1890.

Continuing to implement an outdated ritual has come with unfortunate drawbacks in the Brighamite tradition. For it has led to a forced conformity and the temple ritual being changed to enforce a puritanical agenda implemented by Brighamite leaders in the 1900s, which is at odds with the original 1840s Nauvoo theology. For example, Joseph Smith never revealed that oral sex was an "unholy and impure practice" (which Brighamite leaders declared in the 1980s but then apparently retracted the claim), while the Brighamite temple forbids unholy and impure practices. Instead, Joseph declared that "God is more liberal in his views" in regards to sexuality. Joseph Smith also never intended the Word of Wisdom to be imposed by commandment and constraint before being allowed in the temple (as the Brighamite sect practices). The Mormon garments were never meant to be worn permanently night and day, which is now required to be considered "worthy" in the Brighamite sect. Tithing was about helping the poor and paying tithing was based on your surplus with the goal of building a communitarian Zion-people not for building multiple million dollar temples. Receiving your endowment in the temple was originally meant to happen just one time, not multiple times like today, which enforces the controlling mechanisms in the ritual temple drama put in place by subsequent Brighamite leaders in the 1900s. 

The entire Nauvoo temple ritual was designed to implement plural marriage, which practice ended in 1890. Thus temples with secret rituals are no longer needed, as the whole purpose of the temple was fulfilled by 1890. The original Mormon temple was simply a House of the Lord and no different in many respects than a normal LDS Chapel building, which was the case with the Kirtland temple. The only reason for the closed door policy and oaths of secrecy in the Nauvoo temple was mostly for maintaining the secrecy of plural marriage; and for revealing the true secret nature of God as a man with a body of flesh and bones; which was contrary to the Catholic and Protestant Creeds of the day; and is partially why Joseph was assassinated because he was going against the dogma of Augustinian-Christendom. Since polygamy ended in 1890, and it is no longer a secret but common knowledge that Mormons believe in a different Godhead than Catholics and Protestants, there is no longer a need for secrecy and requirements to enter a Mormon temple. Thus the Emergent Mormon Perspective holds that LDS temples should revert back to the open doors policy of the Kirtland temple; and the ritual elements originally designed for plural marriage be replaced with something more in line with the original ritual in the Kirtland temple.

The Book of Mormon is also clear that the "church" is a community of Christians as the True Vine; and there is no gateway to heaven other than Christ. Thus continuing to implement a temple policy of restriction with Brighamite church leaders acting as the gateway to receive rituals claimed to be the gateway to heaven, becomes unn my opinion controlling and "pharisaical."

There should also be no dress code at church. As the Book of Mormon condemns religious people who dress up in fine apparel and look down on others; while presenting a clear message that a Christian can participate in "church" anywhere, not only in a chapel.

The Brigham-McConkie Lens compared with The Smith-Pratt Lens

 The Utah-based LDS Church thus interprets the Standard Works (Mormon Scripture) though this, what I call the Brigham-McConkie Lens. In other words, they follow a kind of Tradition of the Elders that Jesus opposed in the New Testament. They do not focus on the revelations and the Simple Path in LDS Scripture; but instead follow Brigham Young's dictatorial additions to an Institutional System that developed in the mid 1800s. They further follow the puritanical changes in the culture in the 1900s, culminating in the McConkie era that encapsulated the previous accumulation of puritanical nonsense and scriptural-literalism from previous Church Presidents. 

I realized that the Brigham-McConkie Tradition caused one to read the LDS Scriptures a certain way, and come to certain erroneous conclusions based on that perceptual bias. But if one were to read the LDS Scriptures afresh, not through the post Brigham Young succession of Brighamite Leaders, but instead went back to Original Mormonism (which was largely produced by Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt), then they would come to a whole different way of being Mormon (the word Mormon meaning "more good" according to Joseph Smith). 

See my illustration below that summarizes the difference between the two Perspectives/Lenses:

Click on image to enlarge

As my illustration above points out, one ends up coming to two completely different versions of Mormonism based on the interpretive-Lens through which one reads Mormon Scripture. For example, someone who has just read the body-shaming book, The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer Kimball is going to be primed to see an emphasis on "sexual sins" on nearly every page of Mormon Scripture. But in reality Mormon Scripture actually says very little about "sexual sins" and spends way more time condemning greed, elitism, classism, selfishness, contention, hate, and unjustly harming others physically, etc. In fact, if one grew up in a different Restoration sect, that did not indoctrinate their membership with Augustinian puritanical nonsense, they would not read the Mormon Scriptures the same way. 

The so-called "covenant path," invented by Brighamite-church leaders, contains ideas like oral sex, even in marriage is an unholy and impure practice. Joseph Smith taught no such thing and instead he told Nancy Rigdon that actually "God is more liberal in his views." This is the problem with putting your trust in "the arm of flesh." These men are just men, and have no right to control the lives of Mormons to such a degree. In fact, while many in the Brighamite sect end up suffering feelings of shame, inadequacy, and scrupulosity, these induced disorders and phobias are not found in most other Book of Mormon Churches/Restoration Branches.

Original Mormonism, under the guidance of Joseph Smith, was actually meant to be sexually liberating and empowering. Attending church in a chapel weekly was not a demand in order to be considered "worthy," but instead the early Mormons met regularly not in chapels but in homes or outdoors or in the Kirtland temple (which was open to all). There was no "worthiness interview" before you could enter the temple. There was one way or path to heaven, being saved by grace (see 2 Nephi 2:6-8) and following the simple Doctrine of Christ which can be summarized as:

• Repent: Meaning change course/paths from selfishness to choosing to trust in God (the Divine Good) and be baptized into the Christian path of belonging to the church/ecclesia; and commiting to "esteem your friend or neighbor as if yourself" (see Mosiah 27:4; D&C 38:24–25) and being “... willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God. ...” (Mosiah 18:8–9).

• Feast upon the Word: read and enact the principles and ideals of Mormon Scripture

• Endure: enduring the suffering of the Christian life-stance

• Shine with steadfast loving kindness 

According to LDS Scripture, those who receive God's Spirit (Pneuma) are empowered to also become strong. For LDS Scripture makes it clear that God's Pneuma will empower you to defeat your wicked enemies -- in the righteous cause of protecting your loved ones and defending your freedom -- energizing you to overcome obstacles (murmurers and "the-satans"/advesaries of the world) and establish Zion and Prosper in the Land.

The Smith-Pratt paradigm is the position that salvation and exaltation (or deification) was always a matter of simply being baptized and enduring to the end (as explained in The Book of Mormon and the Lectures on Faith). 

The temple was not the way to salvation but was simply an endowment of power. What the Nauvoo Temple was designed to do was "endow" Mormons with the correct understanding of the nature of the Godhead, and the goodness of the sensual body, and thus expiate the sectarian Creeds from the consciousness of Mormons. Joseph Smith made this clear in several ways, for example he said that in order to be properly "saved" (i.e. know God's true nature) you needed to have a true understanding of God and what kind of being He is. The Nauvoo Temple was thus designed to teach the true nature of God as a man with a body; and that God is more liberal in his views regarding the sensual body. This was the point of the Nauvoo Temple. It was not designed to "save" Mormons in the heavens. It was designed to save them from false doctrine regarding God the Father, and save/rescue them from Augustine, Calvin and Luther's despising of the body as something depraved, wretched, and cursed; and instead become endowed/enlightened to the truth that we are composed of spirit matter, the body is good, and we are not cursed with Original Sin (see Article of Faith #2). 

Since the Nauvoo Temple endowment ritual had an intention and a purpose of enlightening Mormons with a spiritual-physicalist theology, which had been accomplished by 1890 -- which is proven by most Mormons now having a firm conviction that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, and Original Sin is a false doctrine -- then the educative endowing of true knowledge has been accomplished, completed and finished since about 1890. Therefore the Nauvoo Temple ritual is no longer necessary and has become obsolete. Thus it is time to return to the Kirtland Temple model or something similar, as most of the other Joseph Smith Movement/Restoration Branches have done.

 It is time for the FLDS and Brighamite LDS Sect to stop burdening Mormons with a heavy load, as Jesus condemned. Jesus' yoke is easy, as the Book of Mormon confirms. It really is a simple Joyful Path, not a heavy loaded so-called "covenant path." It's not complicated nor burdensome.

 

Note: after writing the contents of this post, I became aware of the website reformmormonism.org, which holds many points of views similar to my own in that it promotes The Smith-Pratt Lens.