Monday, April 10, 2023

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. 


Pratt Brothers and Mormonism:



Parley P. Pratt and his brother Orson Pratt were major contributors to the formation of Mormonism. See:







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's revealed scriptures 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 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," Orson Pratt's "Great First Cause" and Holy Spirit as an omnipreset Substance composed of agential spirit-atoms, or John Spong's conception of God as "the Source of Life, the Source of Love and the Ground of Being."


  • 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:

apophatic god huston smith.jpg
  • Note that this focusmon divine attributes aligns with Orson Pratt's Godhead. 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 #1. Then in Lecture 7 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 off of 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 Stories, Positive Masculinity, Femininity & Healthy Families, via the Hero Journey, 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.



at