Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Birthing the Mormon People through Plural Marriage by Selecting for Elect Men to Bear Noble Preexistent Spirits & Grow in Power and Dominion


Up to Location 1700 of the ebook, Selective Breeding by Alamariu, it occurred to me that it was the unbridled unconventional nature of Joseph Smith, which like the early warband, led him to break away from Protestant convention (nomos):


The primary function of nomos is “social control,” homogenization, taming, tribal survival, the continuation and preservation of mere life through a regime of commands, speech and teaching that covers up and suppresses nature. Excellence, virtue, on the other hand, is a matter of nature, of blood, and it cannot be taught.


[Selective Breeding, page 140]


For a time Joseph returned to Nature and rank order which is encapsulated in Orson Hyde's diagram The Kingdom of God. Hyde's diagram is in a way a version of the symbolism of the wolf in the early warband among the Romans and Greeks. Here are some quotes from the book Selective Breeding on this subject:


Nature, phusis, phue, refers first of all, and always, and above all, to a concrete material reality, to a biological reality that means very plainly: “the body.” (Pindar)


S. 122


Christianity was “Platonism for the people,” or, which is the same thing, an entirely exoteric Platonism. A Platonism with a priesthood that no longer understood nor cared for the fact that the outward moral and political orientation was meant as a protective outer wall for an inner garden where nature itself was nurtured and preserved. The quasi-Platonic priesthood of medieval Christianity, for all its spiritual profundity, was incompetent when it came to the needful task of caring for the “overall development” of man or the cultivation of human nature, a nature they denied.


S. 264


“Its fundamental belief must, in fact, be that the society should exist, not for the sake of the society, but only as a base and framework on which an exceptional kind of nature can raise itself to its higher function and, in general, to a higher form of being, comparable to those heliotropic climbing plants on Java – people call them sipo matador – whose tendrils clutch an oak tree so much and for so long until finally, high over the tree but supported by it, they can unfold their crowns in the open light and make a display of their happiness.”


S. 269f


The martial state, the Spartan state, is the prototype of the state: in its being dedicated to the production of military genius it lays the precondition, or presents the model, for the state as dedicated to the production of genius more generally, for the state as the cultivation of human nature or as the staging ground of higher culture.


S. 271


The founders are necessarily not determined by their time, but determine the horizon of a people; they stand outside this horizon and have nature as a guide much in the same way a horse breeder does.


S. 279


(Source)


By tapping into Nature (defined as spirit matter (D&C 131:7-8), God's law and the Logos or Christ in D&C 88, and the Mind of Deity in Lecture #5), and declaring that God the Father has a body of nature, of divinized flesh and bone (D&C 130:22), Joseph Smith broke free from puritanical Augustinian Christianity and the body-despising Creeds. Rather than the species of docile celibate priests, his priests would compete for rank via showing loyalty, courage and kingdom-building. Thus he restored the energy of Nature and the selection of the most intelligent, strong, and cooperative species of men through the practice of plural marriage: as those who were able to rise in status within the priesthood hierarchy and practice plural marriage were the one's who were most able to multiply their genes and personality traits; and thus it was their natures (genes) and personalities that formed the main body of the Mormon People. 


Joseph did not operate only in the realm of our God-given unconscious instincts of lifeward vitality and Nature however. The Latter-day Saints would not be brute beasts and like ancient warrior terrorizers but peace-seeking gatherers seeking to avoid violence and instead act as warriors for Zion. As we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105: 14-17 (emphasis added):


For behold, I [the Lord] do not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles. Behold, the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints [LDS]. Behold, I have commanded my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., to say unto the strength of my house, even my warriors, my young men, and middle-aged, to gather together for the redemption of my people [i.e. Zion], and throw down the towers of mine enemies, and scatter their watchmen; But the strength of mine house have not hearkened unto my words. But inasmuch as there are those who have hearkened unto my words, I have prepared a blessing and an endowment for them, if they continue faithful.


LDS were to fight only in self-defense, as Americanized, civilized men, of decorum and virtue ethics. As a genius synthesizer, Joseph Smith integrated Haidt's "hive mind" with his vision of Zion; thus you have LDS apostle Orson Hyde's Kingdom diagram of ascending rank hierarchy, combined with the synergistic Beehive symbol.


Joseph's "warriors" we're not sword-wielding Norse Vikings or Greek warrior men on chariots, but men endowed with power to open their mouth and speak with courage and conviction in order to persuade through good communication. Thus you read in the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt showing his adventurous spirit and his bravery and valor in being willing to compete verbally with the Ministers of the day, and win over converts. The early years of Mormonism was a time of being on the offensive, attacking the Protestant dogmas and Creeds in speeches and pamphlets. For example, Joseph openly criticized the Creedal Trinity dogma. Thus it was a competition of minds, a war of ideas, and Mormonism was superior to the competition in my view, offering the genius of Joseph Smith's better theology: wherein he not only had the creativity and Midrashic skills of the apostle Paul in revealing new scriptures; but he was ingenious in how he surrounded himself with the most intelligent, creative and strong-willed men and devout women to be his friends and counselors. He thus bred a leadership of elites which bolstered the LDS Movement with the scholarly intelligence of those like Orson Hyde (who taught Joseph grammar and formed one of the earliest LDS visuals The Kingdom of God), the poetic artistry of Parley P. Pratt (who articulated Mormonism in books and pamphlets), and the strong-willed nature of those like Brigham Young (who succeeded Smith after his death and championed the Mormons in their arduous trek to Utah).


At location 1652 of the ebook Selective Breeding, Alamariu writes:


Without this precise type of aristocracy as a social precondition, an extreme parochialism reigns and there is no looking and no ability to look beyond the boundaries of one people's nomos to begin with.


Very few charismatic preachers dared to go beyond the Creeds and the closed Canon, those who did lacked the aristocratic warrior spirit, the anti-fragility or ability to withstand the scrutiny and criticism and personal attacks. In this regard, Joseph Smith was a breed apart, and he surrounded himself with other strong-willed and creative individuals, like Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt and Brigham Young. And from out of the effort and innovations of these higher men, Mormonism broke away from both Catholicism and Protestantism and produced a more life-affirming theology and a Jewish-like Peoplehood.


Selecting of the Choice Spirits/Intelligences through the Seed of Noble Bodies


A video on Joseph Smith and spirit birth offers these quotes (I was able to verify the second quote with a link in brackets but not the first quote):


“When plurality was first taught in Nauvoo the following arguments were used, that supposing Male & female be about equal in number -- are there not some, more righteous than others. Spirits are begotten in the spirit world, by the righteous -- the wicked have not the privilege of procreating their species, and why not the same restrictions in this world. The wicked, here, have the privilege of begetting tabernacles in this life, but not to beget the intelligent spirit in the eternal world” ~ Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City School of the Prophet Minutes 18 June 1870, page 94)


The “spiritual wife” doctrine I will explain, as taught me by Elder W___e, as taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Elder Adams, William Smith, and the rest of the quorum, &c., &c. It is as follows: -- Joseph had a revelation from God that there were a number of spirits to be born into the world, before their exaltation in the next; that Chrsit would not come until all these spirits received or entered their “tabernacle of clay;” that these spirits were hovering around the world, and at the door of bad houses, watching a chance, however dishonorably, of getting into their tabernacle; that God had provided an honorable way for them to come forth -- that was, by the “Elders of Israel” sealing up virtuous women, and as there was no provision made for woman in the scriptures, their only chance of heaven was to be “sealed up” to some Elder for time and eternity, and be a star in his crown forever; that those who were the cause of bringing forth these spirits would receive a reward -- the ratio of which reward should be the greater or less according to the number they were the means of bringing forth. This, Mr. Editor, is the substance of the “Mysterious of the Kingdom,” in as few words as I can use to explain it.”

(Letter to the Editor by Henry Rowe, 3 February 1845, Messenger and Advocate vol. 1, no. 9, March 1845); [Also see Boston Investigator Vol. XIV. Boston, Mass., Wednesday, February 12, 1845. No. 41.]


 These quotes are unreliable but they point to the idea of spirit being born through noble men. These spirits would be the Intelligences mentioned in the Book of Abraham chapter 3, where first future polygamist Abraham is told by the Lord in verse 14, "I will multiply thee, and thy seed [genes] after thee, like unto these [stars in the sky]; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds." Then in verse 18-26 we read (emphasis added):

Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. I [the Lord] dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them [see D&C 132]; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.


In the 2020 thesis Defending "The Principle": Orson Pratt and the Rhetoric of Plural Marriage by Jake D. Simmondson, we read on pages 19-25 that regarding the 1852 LDS General Conference, Orson Pratt gave the following reasons for Plural Marriage. Note that I have not quoted every defense from the thesis, but have focused on one theme in particular:


… Pratt then leads the congregation on a careful journey through several interrelated doctrines in order to finally land at several points regarding marriage, including plural marriage. 


[1] In the premortal existence of mankind, man was sired as a spirit child of a divine

Father in heaven.


The “Mormons” have a peculiar doctrine in regard to our pre-existence… Why

the fact is, that being that animates this body, that gives life and energy, and

power to move, to act, and to think; that being that dwells within this

tabernacle is much older than what the tabernacle is. … the spirits of all men,

male and female, did have an existence, before man was formed out of the dust

of the ground. But who was their Father? I have already quoted a saying that

God is the Father of our spirits.[49]


[2] The work of the Father is eternal in nature; His designs and the course of the lives of

men fit into an eternal plan.


Suffice it to say, that Abraham and many others of the great and noble ones in

the family of spirits, were chosen before they were born, for certain purposes,

to bring about certain works, to have the privilege of coming upon the stage of

action, among the host of men, in favorable circumstances.[50]


[3] All of the spirit children of Heavenly Father are to be born on the earth in order to

receive a mortal body and fulfill the eternal plan of the Father.


The Lord has ordained that these spirits should come here and take tabernacles

by a certain law, through a certain channel … Here, then, we perceive, just

from this one principle, reasoning from the blessings of Abraham alone, the

necessity—if we would partake of the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and

Jacob—of doing their works; and he that will not do the works of Abraham

and walk in his footsteps, will be deprived of his blessings.[51]


[4] His last point (which was his most important in the context of plural marriage) argues

that marriage, being eternal, is the divinely appointed method of offering bodies to

these spirits from heaven. Thus, plural marriage, in a household of faith and

obedience, offer the highest number of spirits possible the opportunity to receive an

earthly tabernacle in a setting wherein they can learn the Gospel of Jesus Christ and

live a life that will allow them to return to their God.


The Lord ordained marriage between male and female as a law through which

spirits should come here and take tabernacles, and enter into the second state of

existence … [they are] reserved until the dispensation of the fullness of times,

to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall

train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow

up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with

His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith … among the Saints is the most

likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and

righteous parentage … like unto the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of

Old. [52]


That final line, “like unto the patriarchs”, is a clear reference to plural marriage as practiced by the ancient prophets, and the function of polygamy in fulfilling the grand objectives of God that Pratt mentioned. …


Participants in plural marriage are able to experience and enjoy the promises offered

to Abraham and his posterity:


We read that those who do the works of Abraham, are to be blessed with the

blessing of Abraham… Here then, was a foundation laid for the fulfillment of

the great and grand promise concerning the multiplicity of his seed. It would

have been rather a slow process, if Abraham had been confined to one wife, like

some of those narrow, contracted nations of modern Christianity.[54]


- The Abrahamic covenant was very important to the Latter-day Saints. [Footnote 55: See modern scripture taught and published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as The Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants 76:56, Doctrine and

Covenants 86, and Doctrine and Covenants 132:30]. They saw themselves as the modern-day house of Israel and were anxious to obtain the blessings of this covenant.[56] Plural Marriage was another opportunity to secure these deeply desired blessings.



This accords with the Book of Abraham 2: 9-11 below (emphasis added), where Abraham as a body is the source, through his seed (sperm), of producing a great nation as God’s People (emphasis added):


9 And I will make of thee [Abraham] a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;


10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;


11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.


This is why the last verses of D&C 132 speak of plural marriage as the way to have children on earth (or bear the souls in the pre-existence). As we read in an original version of the text below on page 8 of Revelation, 12 July 1843 [D&C 132] (words in brackets my own and some original footnotes pasted within brackets below):



… for they [plural wives or concubines] are given unto him [the LDS male in the 1800s] to multiply & replenish the Earth according to my Commandment [See Genesis 1:28; 9:1.] & to fulfill the promise which was given by my father [God] before the foundation of the world & for thine exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may have <​bear​> the Souls of men, for herein is the work of my father Continued that he may be Glorified— And again verily verily I Say unto you if any man have a wife who holds the Keys of this power [Authority or knowledge of God given to humankind. In the earliest records, the term keys primarily referred to Joseph Smith’s authority to unlock the “mysteries of the kingdom.”]& he teaches unto her the Law of my priesthood as pertaining to these things, they then Shall She believe & administer unto him …. for I will magnify my name upon all those these who receive & abide in my law … I Commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife[Genesis chapter 16 discusses Sarai, who instructed her husband, Abram, to have children by her servant Hagar.]


I used to read this as bearing souls in a future heaven as gods, however the paragraph could be read as those who practice having many wives better able to bear the souls of men (pre-existent spirits) into mortality (i.e. life on earth).


The thesis by Simmondson continues:


Those who participate in plural marriage provide mortal bodies within ideal families

to the most valiant and righteous sons and daughters of Heavenly Father. In so doing,

they help to build up the Kingdom of God through successive righteous generations:


This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous… this would be their highest pleasureand joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage. Then is it not reasonable and consistent that the Lord should say unto His faithful and chosen servants… take unto yourselves more wives?[60]


- The Saints were fixated upon the idea of Zion, and their focus was that of building Zion, both in a literal and figurative sense. An essential component of the building of Zion was raising a righteous posterity. According to Brigham Young, this was an individual endeavor as well as a family affair:


When we conclude to make a Zion we will make it, and this work commences in the heart of each person. When the father of a family wishes to make a Zion in his own house, he must take the lead in this good work, which it is impossible for him to do unless he himself possesses the spirit of Zion. Before he can produce the work of sanctification in his family, he must sanctify himself, and by this means God can help him to sanctify his family…[61]


One way to establish and strengthen Zion was for God’s “faithful and chosen” to participate in plural marriage, increasing the number of children raised in homes with “noble parentage”.



From this it is clear that plural marriage was thought of as the means of providing a filtering pathway, a selection process, for birthing as many spirits/intelligences as possible to be born into the lineage of noble priesthood holders. In episode"696: Mormon Polygamy & Quest for the Presidency (Newell Bringhurst/Craig Foster 1 of 2)" on YouTube, at the one hour and 9-11 minute mark, Craig Foster talks and quotes from one of his books stating:


Just to give you an idea of the impact that plural marriage had on the Church, just using the LDS leaders (the Presidents of the Church), with these six men from Brigham Young through Heber J. Grant, there were 98 wives and 225 children. This means that the first 150 years of the Church -- from 1830 to almost the middle of the 20th century -- were presided over by polygamists; and to give you an idea of the continuing impact, the last of these 225 children (of these polygamist leaders) to die was Francis Marian Grant, the youngest daughter of Heber J. Grant and Emily Harris Wells. Francis ... died in 1995, 165 years after the founding of the Church and 151 years after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. ... So pretty much in everyone's lifetime that's going to be reading these books, at least right now, we had remnants of plural marriage with the children of these leaders.


In other words, there was definitely a selection process of a certain type of person or personality, which built the main body of the Mormon People.


This is why in the book Wilford Woodruff: History of His Life and Labors as Recorded ...by Matthias F. Cowleyon, on page 546 he says, “The law of the Patriarchal order of marriage belongs to this dispensation, and after it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph he was commanded to receive it. If he and the people had rejected it, the Church and Kingdom of God would have advanced no further and God would have taken it from them and given it to another people.”


So basically the LDS Presidents birthing over 200 kids certainly filtered in a certain type of DNA and personality and characteristics. Like courage and strength and agreeableness and conscientiousness (on the Big 5 Personality traits that I discuss here).  


In 1834 Joseph Smith said to the LDS members (emphasis added):


... it is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America. it will fill the world.' ... 'it will fill the Rocky Mountains. There will be tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints who will be gathered in the Rocky Mountains ... This people will go into the Rocky Mountains; they will there build temples to the Most High. They will raise up a posterity there, and the Latter-day Saints who dwell in these mountains ...


In the documentary, America's Sacred Ground: Kirtland, an actor playing Joseph Smith is depicted prophesying the above quoted text on the future growth of the Mormon People. I took the following screenshots where the words were combined with Utah:



Click in images to Enlarge 

Here, we get a visual of the meaning of multiplying and replenishing of lives through the male seed (Abr. 2:11), of bearing souls of men (D&C 132:63) through plural marriage, as it was all about raising up a righteous posterity through a select f
ew righteous  men. 

If you think about it, why do the Gospels begin with a genealogy of Jesus? Because it mattered that he descended from the tribe of David as the Davidic Messiah, for it was through his Davidic line that the Messiah would produce the Jesus People, as a new spiritual species


In the book Dominion and Dynasty: A Study in Old Testament Theology, Vol. 15 (New Studies in Biblical Theology) by Dempster, Stephen G., the author covers how Jesus descended from polygamists and the whole theology of the Hebrew Bible was about God's People (Israel) gaining dominion by forming dynasties just like Joseph Smith sought to do. Just as there was a selection process in forming the Jewish People and the Davidic line through which Jesus descended, similarly there was also selection process that took place in early Mormonism.


Jesus himself descended from polygamists who raised up a righteous seed. Christians interpret the Messiah being spoken of in Isaiah 9:7 below, to be Jesus, as quoted below from the Expanded Bible:


There will be no end to the ·growth [abundance; increase] of his ·rule [dominion; government],
    nor to the peace he will bring.
He will rule as king on David’s throne
    and over David’s kingdom [2 Sam. 7:11–16].
He will ·make it strong [establish and sustain it]
    by ruling with justice and ·goodness [righteousness]
    from now on and forever.
·The Lord All-Powerful will do this
    because of his strong love for his people [L The zeal/jealousy of the Lord Almighty/of Heaven’s Armies/T of hosts will accomplish this].


The "the growth [abundance; increase] of his ·rule [dominion ...]" is interpreted in LDS Scripture as LDS Christians receiving the same glory, power and dominion as Christ as co-heirs with Christ (see Lecture #7 and D&C 132).


Note that not only does Jesus descend from polygamists but he metaphorically represents plural marriage by being the Bridegroom (husband) to many brides, as "His Bride" (that is the church/ecclesia) are Christians who are metaphorically his fiancés and future plural wives metaphorically. It is through the selection process of Jesus breathing his divine seed (sperma) into certain people, that he spiritually births a new species or deified People. From this perspective, Joseph Smith simply restored this biblical selection process of birthing a People, as plural marriage was the biblical method of bringing preexistent souls into an elite lineage of intelligence and kindness, as Joseph was according to scripture commissioned by Christ "to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts ..." (D&C 29:7).

Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Big 5 Personality Theory, Religion and Mental Health, & How Mormon Culture Filters in more Agreeable, Conscientious, and Friendly People

Here is a summary of the Big 5 Personality Traits:

Conscientiousness is a fundamental personality trait—one of the Big Five—that reflects the tendency to be responsible, organized, hard-working, goal-directed, and to adhere to norms and rules.

(Source

Openness (also referred to as openness to experience) emphasizes imagination and insight the most out of all five personality traits. People who are high in openness tend to have a broad range of interests. They are curious about the world and other people and are eager to learn new things and enjoy new experiences.

(Source)

Agreeableness is a personality trait that can be described as cooperative, polite, kind, and friendly. People high in agreeableness are more trusting, affectionate, altruistic, and generally displaying more prosocial behaviors than others.

(Source)

Extraversion. Extraversion (or extroversion) is a personality trait characterized by excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and high amounts of emotional expressiveness. People high in extraversion are outgoing and tend to gain energy in social situations.

(Source

Neuroticism, one of the Big 5 personality traits, is typically defined as a tendency toward anxiety, depression, self-doubt, and other negative feelings. All personality traits, including neuroticism, exist on a spectrum—some people are just much more neurotic than others.

(Source

 

This video explains the Big Five Personality traits in regards to religiosity. In the video it says that based on a metanalysis there is some association between religiousness and Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. People with these personality features tend to be religious and hold the view of a benevolent God. Those who tend to be dogmatic and Fundamentalist in their religious orientation tend to be low on Openness. Thus, the data seems to show that people with personalities who are high in agreeableness and conscientiousness will tend to be religious but not dogmatic nor fundamentalist in their religiousness.


This is also confirmed in this video Is There An Atheist Personality Type? (Psychology of Atheism Part 2)": wherein the personality types that tend to be atheist are compared with those who tend to be spiritual or religious. This explains why the personality type of many or most Mormons tends to be high in conscientiousness and agreeableness.

 

According to the scientific paper Within-person associations between Big Five traits and religiosity (2023) by Mohsen Joshanloo, the abstract states:

Cross-sectional studies suggest that of the Big Five personality traits, agreeableness and conscientiousness correlate most strongly with religiosity. ...  A higher than typical level of openness was associated with a lower than typical level of religiosity after about a decade

A Canadian study found the same thing. In Religion and the five factor model of personality: An exploratory investigation using a Canadian university sample, authors Andrew Taylor, Douglas A MacDonald found that "Agreeableness and Conscientiousness domains are significantly related to and affected by religion ..."

A 2016 article How does personality vary across US cities? by JonahS states:

Seven of the 10 cities with highest average agreeableness are in Utah. This corresponds to Utah residents being almost 60% Mormon: as a group, Mormons have exceptionally high average agreeableness. 

The article goes on to say, "New Yorkers really are unusually disagreeable." Not surprising there are hardly any Mormons in New York.

So it is clear that religion either produces or attracts those who are high in agreeableness and conscientiousness, while those who are high in openness may not feel at home in more fundamentalist religions. This explains why I personally struggled with maintaining my LDS faith in my 20s and 30s during the McConkie era (which was more "fundamentalistic" in my view), because I am higher in openness. I was curious and open to exploring nontraditional ideas and philosophies while other LDS members most often were not during the 1990s to early 2005. I left the Church around 2004. A year later in 2005 there began an explosion of openness in LDS scholarship, from Rough Stone Rolling to the theological explorations of Terryl Givens. Yet I am also high in agreeableness and conscientiousness which meant I never felt at home in secular culture and always felt more at home among LDS members who like me tend to be high in agreeableness and conscientiousness. I am also high in the Big 5 trait Neuroticism, being prone to anxiety and in my 20s while LDS I developed scrupulosity and this contributed to my eventual disaffection from the LDS Church around 2004. I now realize that this is subjective on my part, and that others who are low in neuroticism on the Big 5 will not experience scrupulosity in the LDS Church like I did (or at least not to the same degree that I did). I became aware of this after watching Barriers to Belief: Mental Distress and Disaffection from the Church - 2018 FairMormon Conference. The LDS Church Leaders have also begun to speak out against ideas and policies in LDS culture that often facilitate scrupulosity and feelings of inadequacy.  For example, on August 2021 at a Stake Leadership meeting at the Herriman Utah Rose Canyon Stake, Area Seventy Richard N Holzapfel spoke out against past ideas on body shaming and went on to admit that the LDS Church has taught hurtful things about repentance leading to toxic perfectionism. So if the LDS continues to reform such harmful cultural ideas that are not actually in the LDS Scriptures (which  do not promote scrupulosity and perfectionism), then LDS culture will become more and more only a force for good with mostly agreeable and conscientious people.

I found more evidence that Mormons are more agreeable and conscientious in the article America’s mood map: Utah found as most agreeable place in the country, author Haley Beckstrand writes in 2013:

Utah was found in a recent study to be the number-one most agreeable state and the least neurotic place in the country, confirming that Mormons may be as nice as we think we are.

 The 13-year study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, gathered 1.6 million data response surveys from 48 states and concluded that lines could be drawn in the U.S. based on the personality of a region.

Large samples of people from across the states took the “Big Five” personality test based on extroversion, agreeability, neuroticism, openness and conscientiousness. ...

...  Bob Ridge, a social psychology professor at BYU, said these personality traits help give key insights into individual and community behavior.

“Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative,” Ridge said, “while neuroticism measures emotional stability and impulse control.”

Commenting on the theory of the study instead of the methodology, Ridge said Utahns can look to their past to help explain these results.

“People that live in Utah tend to be cooperative rather than antagonistic,” Ridge said. “I think you can trace that to the original pioneer ethic and is also consistent with the values of Christianity.”

Ridge said people in Utah are emotionally stable, and there are many environmental factors that offer insights into why.

“One could theorize that comes from the value system and Christian teachings,” Ridge said. “Those Christian values are passed down from generation to generation.”

...  Sam A. Hardy, an assistant professor in the psychology department, said ... something about Utah’s culture is unique from the rest of the country.

“We’re a more highly religious state,” Hardy said. “So the high agreeableness could be a product of high religiosity.” 

 Hardy also said Utah is fairly homogeneous across race, religion and politics, and those factors could help account for the results of the study.

“If agreeableness is getting along, then it’s probably easier to get along when we are all the same,” Hardy said.

This is more evidence for Mormons being in my view a quasi-ethnicity, as Jews are also "fairly homogeneous across race, religion and politics." Yet it is not just Utah, Mormons in other states are more agreeable and conscientious. So it is more than just about geography, but more about culture and ethos in my view. 

From this data it is clear to me that Mormonism selects for more agreeable and conscientious people. In other words, those with traits on the Big 5 that makes them happier and healthier, tend to gravitate toward Mormonism. I believe this because of plural marriage in the 1800s, where certain personality traits were selected for in the birthing of the Mormon People. 

I did my own experiment in California, and asked several random people if Mormons are nicer than other groups. I usually asked the question along the lines of which group is the nicest and friendliest, Catholics, Protestants, or Mormons? Or I got more specific and said Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, etc. Everyone I asked always said the Mormons.

Several studies show that those who are high in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion tend to be happier with greater well-being on average. Going on an LDS mission led me, as an Introvert (low on Extraversion), to develop an Extroverted persona and when I did that (being social and outgoing a few days a week at LDS socials) I did feel happier than when I tend to enter my isolated introverted state sometimes for long periods. 

If you read Jacob Hanson's article below on how the LDS Church is good you will see several sources of data showing that Mormons are happier and healthier than most other groups. What I realized reading the following articles is that Mormons in general (there are exceptions of course) are happier and healthier than other groups in part because of the Big 5 traits. These articles provide evidence that Mormons are one of the healthiest and happiest groups:

 




So we have clear evidence in the data above that religiousness leads to more agreeableness and conscientiousness and increased well-being and happiest among most religious people. In contrast, a lack of faith or belief or higher meaning in life often leads to nihilism and mental illnesses, as covered in this video and essay: Why the Lack of Religion Breeds Mental Illness by Academy of Ideas.


Then if you watch this video on the positive affects of religion, the author looks at the scientific data on religion and mental health and at 9 minutes he talks about the effects of social capital or being part of a social group has on your mental health. Listening to this I realized that every time I have had anxiety it's gotten worse when I've been in isolation. In fact, it was my going to LDS Church at the age of 17 after having panic attacks, that those panic attacks reduced after being part of the LDS community. And it was leaving the LDS Church and being more isolated as an agnostic in my 20s and 30s when my anxiety became its worst. At 11 minutes in the video he makes a really good point about the reduction of ego when being part of a religious community. Those who are more willing to give up their ego or being self-absorbed, and being agreeable and conscientious and conforming to social norms are going to be more religious and happier; because they're not constantly self-centered but more other-centered which means you're going to generate positive feedback loops of mutual reciprocation; and also by thinking less of oneself you're going to be less depressed. He goes on to talk about how prayer and other religious exercises act as a form of mindfulness meditation which increases well-being and happiness. At 6 minutes he does say that there are some negative side effects that can occur in the religious life like feeling unhealthy guilt or shame or being subject to abuses of power. However, with healthy boundaries and more LDS leaders like 70 Richard N Holzapfel speaking out against past ideas on body shaming and toxic perfectionism, it appears that for most people religion, and Mormonism in particular, can be a net positive in their life (especially if they are high in agreeableness and conscientiousness). 


Friday, May 10, 2024

Orson Hyde on aiming for Power

 Orson Hyde at General Conference 1853 (JD Vol. 1: 22) The Man to Lead God's People ... (Audio version here):


... But, says one, "If this be correct, it is giving to one man almighty power. It is giving to one man supreme power to rule." Admit it. What are we all aiming for? Are we not aiming for supreme power? Are we not aiming to obtain the promise that has been made to all believers? What is it? "He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Are we not all seeking for this, that we may overcome, that we may inherit all things? For says Paul, "Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." Well, then, if all things are ours, we should be very insensible to our best interests if we did not seek diligently for that which Heaven promises as a legacy to the faithful. It is our right, then. Do we not all expect to be armed with almighty power? Is there a Latter-day Saint under the sound of my voice, whose heart is fired with celestial light, but that seeks to be in possession of supreme power (I had like to have said) both in heaven and on earth? It is said, we are "heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ." Does Jesus Christ possess all power in heaven and on earth? He said, when he rose from the dead, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Are we heirs of God, and joint heirs with that illustrious character? He has so declared! If we are, do we not, in common with him, possess the power that is in heaven and on earth!  If one individual, then, is a little ahead of us in obtaining this power, let us not be envious, for it will be our time by and by. We ought to be the more thankful, and glorify God that He has armed one individual with this power, and opened a way that we may follow him, and obtain the same power. Instead of it being a cause of envy, it ought to be, on the contrary, a matter to call forth our warmest thanksgivings and praise to God, that He has brought back that power again to the earth in our day, by which we may be led step by step to the point we hope to attain.

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Orson Hyde Confirms Father and Son "[resemble] each other exactly in features and stature."

 According to this site, “Orson Hyde wrote a treatise on the faith, doctrine, and history of the Church which he then translated and published in German. Hyde’s work was titled Ein Ruf aus der Wuste, which was the first time an account of the First Vision was published in a foreign language.” In his description of Joseph Smith First Vision, in 1842 Orson Hyde clarifies and integrates the 1832 and 1838 First Vision versions thus:

At this sacred moment, the natural world around him was excluded from his view, so that he would be open to the presentation of heavenly and spiritual things. Two glorious heavenly personages stood before him, resembling each other exactly in features and stature. They told him that his prayer had been answered and that the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing. He was also told that he should not join any of the religious sects or denominations, because all of them erred in doctrine and none were recognized by God as his church and kingdom. …

The 1832 First Vision emphasizes Jesus only as Lord and Joseph Smith receives a forgiveness of sins. We see no contradiction with the 1838 account based on Hyde saying “They told him that his prayer had been answered and that the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing.” This could be the blessing of a forgiveness of sins. Then Hyde says, “He [Christ] also told …” In Hyde’s version we then see what Joseph Smith may have meant by the 1832 account that only mentions Jesus, which is that because Jesus and God the Father “[resemble] each other exactly in features and stature” (as Hyde puts it). it is understandable that Joseph Smith would only mention Christ in the 1832 version, as seeing Christ was in his mind the same as seeing the Father, which is corroborated in John 14:8-9 (NKJV):

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 

In other words, the Father and Son were nearly “identical twins” as a duplicate genome basically, which I discuss in my blog series here

The New Covenant of the Priesthood and Plural Marriage as the Means to the End of Raising Up a Righteous Seed (Peoplehood) and Generating Zion as a Circle of Friends


In my blog series here, I discuss gene-culture coevolution and argue that certain personalities and character traits were selected for during the 1800s when plural marriage (i.e. polygamy was practiced among Mormons). Thus there was a type of funneling process where difficult, disagreeable, and unfriendly types chose (and choose today) not to be part of the LDS fold; and so over time there was a filtering in of mostly happy, strong, agreeable and civilized type people into Mormonism, so that the early LDS polygamists unintentionally selectively bred a kind of quasi-ethnicity as a cultural identity that became known as the "Mormons."

In the book Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, in the forward Todd Compton basically confirms what I think which is that the LDS Priesthood is in part connected to plural marriage which we see with Abraham 2:11, as Compton writes on pages 4-6 (emphasis added):


Foreword by Todd Compton 


This is an important book, documenting a key chapter in Latter-day Saint history that few Mormons know about. The Quorum of Anointed (also known as the Holy Order) was the secret, elite group which founding prophet Joseph Smith organized and to which he revealed for the first time the ordinances of washing and anointing, the endowment, and the “fullness of the priesthood”—the foundation of modern LDS temple ritual. …


… Joseph Smith undoubtedly stood at the center of things; around him revolved a number of social circles, many of them secret, that only occasionally intersected. There was the extremely secret inner circle of those who had been introduced to, and were beginning to practice, plural marriage; there was the Council of Fifty, the sub rosa political kingdom of the church, which would privately crown Joseph Smith king of the theocratic kingdom of God. … the women’s Relief Society, led by Emma Smith, who was generally an opponent of polygamy and did not know of many of her husband’s plural marriages; and her counselors, Elizabeth Whitney, the mother of one of Joseph’s wives, and Sarah Cleveland, herself a wife of Joseph. Finally, there was the circle documented in this book, the Holy Order, the Quorum of the Anointed, sometimes simply called the priesthood, intersecting with all these groups. …


The editors of this volume suggest that the Quorum of the Anointed [again, “sometimes simply called the priesthood”], to which Joseph Smith introduced the LDS temple rites, was closely connected to his introduction of plural marriage to his most trusted disciples. The Quorum of the Anointed facilitated the teaching of secrecy; and Joseph’s polygamy, which could have had disastrous legal implications and caused adverse publicity if it became public knowledge, was one of the main reasons secrecy was needed. In addition, sometimes the reward of entering the quorum gave Mormons motivation for accepting polygamy.


Thus the priesthood was connected to plural marriage as the keys to raise up a righteous seed, seed meaning a Peoplehood (a Mormon People), just as Abraham's seed raised up the Israelites. Mormons who were of the Lost Tribes of Israel (usually of the Tribe of Ephraim) were simply integrated back into Israel (usually as Ephraimites). Those who were not of Israelite blood, who were more fully Gentile, receive Jesus’ supernatural seed as Gentile Brides/Christians who receive his divine sperma/DNA as pneuma (pronounced nooma). Thus, just as Jesus supernaturally seeded multiple brides (among non-Israelite Christians), breeding a Christian People (i.e. the Jesus People), the Mormon priesthood was the Order of the Son of God (see D&C 107:3) as in it is the order of seeding a People (see Abraham 2:11) through plural marriage among Ephraimites. Thus the priesthood was the order of plural marriage, the power to seal friends and couples and produce a People.


The priesthood order was ultimately a Circle of Friends: “... I [Christ] say unto you, my friends, for from henceforth I shall call you friends ..” (D&C 84:77; compare John 15:15). So after Christ repeatedly refers to LDS Christians as his friends in scripture, we then read about the greeting ritual of the LDS School of the Prophets in D&C 88 (emphasis added):


3 Wherefore, I [Christ] now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; ...


62 And again, verily I say unto you, my friends, I leave these sayings …


117 Therefore, verily I say unto you, my friends, call your solemn assembly, …


127 And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons—

128 And this shall be the order of the house of the presidency of the school:


130 And when he cometh into the house of God, for he should be first in the house—behold, this is beautiful, that he may be an example—

131 Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant.

132 And when any shall come in after him, let the teacher arise, and, with uplifted hands to heaven, yea, even directly, salute his brother or brethren with these words:

133 Art thou a brother or brethren? I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen. 


In The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism: Joseph Smith's Unfinished Reformation, author Don Bradley argues that Joseph Smith was seeking to build a society of genuine friends bonded in friendship. One way to do this was through marriages between families through plural marriages where everyone is interconnected as sons in law and fathers in law and mothers in law and daughters in law, etc., as a circle of friends seeking to build Zion: by producing a righteous seed (a quasi-ethnic encultured Mormon People). This is why Don Bradley has recently argued as of 2023 (see this Ward Radio podcast episode  starting at the 15 minute mark), that new research reveals Joseph’s motivations for plural marriage had more to do with generating a circle of friends bonded together through celestial sealings: as in many cases he was plurally married to women who were already months into a pregnancy and about to give birth to another man's child, and in that culture in the 1800s pregnant women did not have sex as that was considered taboo; and thus those particular polyandrous plural marriages would have most likely been sexless marriage sealings for eternity only. So obviously there was a different motive for such sealings which Bradley discusses.


If we then consider the motivations for temple rituals like baptism for the dead which was ultimately about bonding the dead to the living as eternal friends and brothers/sisters in the celestial realm, just as Joseph saw in vision his deceased brother Alvin in heaven. So sealings of deceased fathers to sons, deceased siblings to siblings, generated a great Chain of Belonging.


So as I see it, Joseph Smith was trying basically game the system of God's laws so to speak. In other words, I think he believed he found a loophole in God's laws and ordinances as found in the Bible. So for him, believing God was inspiring him, meant that just as God inspired him to compose the Book of Mormon and gather Israel, so too he believed that just as Christ gave the power to seal to his disciples, he could also seal or bind his loved ones and friends to him to secure their exaltation in heaven. As Episode 5: “Looking Toward Eternity” of the Nauvoo Temple Podcast explains (emphasis added):


Spencer: ... What do I mean when I say “sealing”? Joseph Smith taught that the keys of the priesthood contained the power to seal something on earth and have it sealed in heaven. In the Bible, Jesus is recorded granting this power to his apostle, Peter, in Matthew chapter 16 verse 19. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As Joseph Smith would teach, this sealing power had been restored to the earth and could be used to seal a marriage between a man and a woman, thus making their marital relationship extend for eternity. Early Latter-day Saints often referred to this doctrine as celestial marriage, and they soon understood the doctrine as sealing not just a man and woman to each other for eternity, but their posterity to them as well. Now, if we are to more fully understand the history of the sealing ordinance in Joseph Smith’s ministry as a prophet, we need to talk for just a moment about plural marriage. What appears to be in part the result of Joseph Smith trying to understand how several biblical prophets—such as Moses and Abraham—were permitted by God to have more than one wife, Joseph told some trusted friends that he had received a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage. As a result, Joseph married multiple women and introduced the practice to close associates. ...
Sharalyn: Most of the early sealings were in fact plural marriages, and so when we talk about sealing, we can’t divorce it from plural marriage. They’re just very much a part of the same discussion. But these sealings, they occurred in a number of ways. There were sealings for life only, there were sealings for eternity only, or for time and eternity. And the problem that we have in even trying to explain sealings and, by default, plural marriage during this time frame is that we have a dearth of contemporary sources on plural marriage. It makes it really problematic to identify the type of sealing that is occurring in every circumstance. What we do know is that Joseph Smith privately taught the principles of celestial marriage and sealing to individuals. He would approach a family member about sealing prior to approaching the particular woman of that family about being sealed to him. Sealings were performed by Joseph Smith himself or with Joseph Smith’s permission. There was one point where Hyrum Smith ended up sealing a couple and Joseph wasn’t aware of it, and he rebuked his brother because Joseph was not aware of the sealing and Joseph had not given his permission for the sealing to occur. So, this was a very important component of the sealing, it had to be sanctioned by Joseph Smith himself. And this sealing could be extended to people through priesthood holders who were appointed by Joseph Smith. But the sealings were generally kept secret. Most members of the church weren’t even aware that they occurred.

...  Spencer: So, when, under the direction of Joseph Smith, did the first sealings occur? That’s unclear. Some scholars argue that they occurred as early as the 1830s. We know that Joseph Smith was teaching about the endurance of marriage in the next life to some church members then, but the actual performance of sealings at that time is not documented. However, we do have records of sealings being performed in Nauvoo in 1841.


Sharalyn: The broader context that we have for sealings occurring is in 1841 when Joseph Smith was sealed to three women, Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs, and Presendia Huntington Buell. Now, Joseph Bates Noble sealed Louisa Beaman to Joseph Smith. From that event, Noble recounts that Joseph taught him the principles of celestial marriage, and that Joseph Smith had received a revelation from God about it. Joseph also taught Marinda Nancy Hyde about celestial marriage in 1841. He was not sealed to her at that time; he was eventually sealed to her in 1843, but all in all, prior to Joseph Smith’s death, we only have approximately 100 men and women who were sealed in addition to Joseph being sealed to his wives. So again, we have a very, very small number of people who are being sealed.


Spencer: But were all sealings in Nauvoo plural marriages?


Sharalyn: No, they’re not. Some of them are life marriages of couples who had been civilly married who ended up being sealed, that Joseph extended the sealing blessings to them. There’s other individuals where we have a woman who is a church member who is civilly married to a man who’s not a member of the church, this woman is extended the blessings of the sealing to a man who is a member of the church. Part of the sense of this is that the sealing was granted these women an opportunity of exaltation that they simply did not have with the husband that they were civilly married to.


Spencer: And this seems to be the driving force behind the introduction of the sealing ordinance, this desire to connect the human family together in order to ensure that as many people as possible had the opportunity to receive ordinances that Latter-day Saints believed were essential for eternal life.


But it was often messy. This desire to connect the human family for a larger, spiritual purpose was a simple desire but not one that was always easy to implement. ...

 

... Spencer: A July 12, 1843, revelation from Joseph Smith, what today is Doctrine and Covenants section 132, describes both plural marriage and sealings. The Joseph Smith Papers has published an annotated version of this revelation with a historical introduction for those who are interested in studying this history in greater detail. ...

 

... Spencer: Now let’s talk about another temple ordinance that Joseph Smith introduced in Nauvoo even before the temple was completed. Let’s talk about the endowment.


Do you remember in episode 2 of this podcast when we talked about why Latter-day Saints built temples? We spoke about a general endowment of power, a gift of power, that would occur within the temple, an endowment that Latter-day Saints understood as coming closer to God. And the Saints felt that they had achieved this purpose in the Kirtland Temple. But, in Nauvoo, Joseph’s religious teachings took this notion further.


The endowment ritual consists of a re-enactment of the creation of the world. In the process, those participating in the ceremony make several covenants, promising to keep specific commandments of God, and are promised certain blessings in return. At the end of the ceremony, participants are symbolically welcomed back into the presence of God.


And while this ordinance is symbolic, Latter-day Saints then, and now, believe that keeping the covenants made in the endowment will in fact empower men and women to return to God’s presence after they die.


In describing the purpose of this ordinance, Brigham Young publicly stated, “Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.”


In 1842, even before the completion of the Nauvoo Temple, Joseph began to share the endowment ordinance with a small group of church members. He taught that it was revealed to him by God. We do not know much about that revelatory process. For instance, we don’t know if it was given to him all at once or over an extended period of time. And we don’t know to what extent experiences in and around Nauvoo served as catalysts to that process. But what appears clear from his history is that for some time before the completion of the temple, Joseph was preparing the Saints in Nauvoo to receive this ordinance. It was part of the restoration of the “fulness of the priesthood” that the January 1841 revelation had promised.

 

As I see it, Joseph Smith had come believe in the importance of teaching the first Mormons that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone and the body is not sinful and unholy. So the temple ritual of entering the presence of the Lord was in part meant to teach God the Father's embodiment. This is why the original temple endowment also included a criticism of the Catholic and Protestant creeds that believed a god without parts or passions. I discuss this in more detail in my document Toward a Theology of the Body.

Joseph Smith once said something along the lines of we need to get clever and seal as many to us as possible. I interpret this as Joseph truly believing he could produce a kind of written religious contract that God would be bound to uphold.  The priesthood was the authority to do this, like the license of a real estate agent. As temple high priesthood, Joseph could seal couples and secure their exaltation. I think this was the core intention of the development of the priesthood. With the end of plural marriage around 1890, I believe this also ended the need for the priesthood. The ultimate aim of the priesthood was to seal friends and families in order to breed a new People and this had been accomplished by 1900. Thus the priesthood has fulfilled its purpose, just as the Old Testament priesthood had fulfilled its purpose of animal sacrifices in preparation of the sacrifice of Christ which nailed the law to the cross and ended to the need for Old Testament temple priests. So too, plural marriage through temple priests ended around 1900 and thus the priesthood ended around 1900 as well. 


Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Ex-Mormon Jonathan Streeter argues for the "Truth" of Mormonism by Seeing Religion as an Evolutionary Living Framework of Action, Ideals, Tradition and Heritage

 In the "TOTAS: Religion as an Evolutionary Living FAITH w/ Troy Leavitt" on YouTube, Jonathan Streeter and Troy Leavitt, basically discuss gene-culture coevolution at 25 minutes. They also discuss how studies show that religion does make most people healthier and happier in general.

At 35-38 minutes, host Jonathan Streeter comes to the same conclusions that I have, which is that from the perspective of gene-culture coevolution, it doesn't even matter if the ideas of a religion are objectively true or not; from a lifeward perspective, it is about ideas having evolutionarily and cultural usefulness in generating greater social cohesion and the unifying of the family and the tribe; so that the ideas are replicated into future generations and make the individual organism and the tribe more fit and reproductively successful and powerful. 

So after starting this blog series it was validating to see somebody else who spent over 10 years out of the LDS Church in the exmormon world, to then upon further scientific investigation and rational inquiry, came to realize that there is another way of assessing and valuing Mormonism: through the perspective of it being a cultural phenomenon as an evolutionary successful form of ideas aiding in the health and flourishing of the Mormon People. Once one opens their eyes to this evolutionary fitness view, it moves one further away from anti-Mormonism and more towards a respect of their Mormon heritage.

They then discuss the importance of religious ideas and how they have the ability to reproduce the species successfully. They point out that, in my own words, from the perspective of Life what is actually true is that which lives and grows. So that from an evolutionary perspective the only "truth" is that which evolves the newest forms successfully. Otherwise there is nothing, no form, to call truth to begin with. So from this perspective, Mormonism is true as an adaptable form of ideas because it is a proven theological system for reproducing the species. 

At 45 minutes, Jonathan Streeter then has an epiphany, realizing that when he became an exmormon and felt that he was "escaping the prison of Mormonism" at 39 years old, he had not fully realized that he was looking at Mormonism only through an individualist and empirical perspective and not a bio-cultural perspective and how religion empowers cohesion in a family and tribal culture. Very similar to Jonathan, my leaving of the LDS Church around age 25, I had the same perspective as him and it took me also a decade or more to fully realize what I do now.

Venerating your Ancestors 

At 47 minutes, Jonathan Streeter talks as if he had been reading my mind the last few years. As he also talks about the importance of respecting your Mormon Heritage and basically if you have a veneration for your ancestors you're less likely to leave one set of belief propositions for another set, because you are more deeply rooted in the religion due to your ancestral respect. Furthermore, he argues that that the Cultural Heritage is a substrate of a moral foundation which provides the means toward growing an ethical culture. 

His guest agrees and says at 50 minutes that a good example of a group of an "ex-" group opposing tradition is the Chinese revolution trying to overturn their cultural heritage and ethical foundations and it ending in disaster. As he was saying this I thought about how most of exmormon culture has degenerated into self-worship, mean-spirited insult fests, and offering no better worldview alternative except nihilism and wokeism. 

They then give the analogy of Chesterton's fence. Streeter then, at about 53 minutes, argues that the demand for moral perfection from the founders of a religion is ultimately misguided, and what is more important is the ethical norms and cultural guidelines of the overall religion; as it produces nicer and happier people. Because if you base your criteria of judgment of Mormonism on the perfection or imperfection of the founders of that religion, and you find all these "skeletons in their closet," and then you leave Mormonism (or Catholicism or whatever), you will then likely try to find another worldview or cultural system of ideas to live by; but then you are likely going to find similar "skeletons in the closet" of the people who formed those new ideas and philosophical systems. Therefore it is better to evaluate Mormonism on its cultural value and ethical guidelines and norms for producing better and nicer civilized people and functional families. In other words, the founders of the LDS Religion and its current leaders don't need to be morally perfect to find great value Mormonism; just like we can criticize the American Founding Fathers but still realize that America is great and we respect our American Heritage and don't intend to renounce our American citizenship just because this or that Founding Father was morally imperfect or the current political leadership is less than ideal.