The Coporate Godhead vs. The Smith-Pratt Godhead: How the Godhead Affects the LDS Trinity, Grace, Atonement, Leadership, Purity and Worthiness, etc.

In this post I will compare and contrast the more beuacratic take on the Godhead -- and resulting Corporate Church (or Manualized View) based on LDS leaders who began to adopt Joseph Feliding Smith's "Protestantist" mentality -- as compared to Joseph Smith Jr.'s more science-based Hebrew mysticism and Widstoe and Pratt's more rational theology (or what I call Pro-Body Mormonism). 

In my view, the Coporate Church began to develop with Brigham Young presenting a more bureaucratic godhead by reformulating the temple ritual based on his "pet dogma" that Adam is god. I think Young was intimidated by LDS scholars and thinkers, after lacking the intellectual ability to study Hebrew in the School of the Prophets with the others. Instead of learning Hebrew Young focused on construction of the Kirtland temple. Young came to represent the bureaucratic leader who is not scholarly and lacking in Joseph's mystic qualities. Bringing Young is more construction oriented and business minded, focusing on becoming wealthy and in fact he became one of the richest men in Utah. Orson Pratt was then snubbed from his rightful place as the next Church President. Therefore a future LDS Leaders after Young, eventually become anti-science like Joseph Fielding Smith (who was Bruce R. McConkie father-in-law). From this line of Leaders, the trajectory changes from Joseph Smith as a mystical poet philosopher and Parley Pratt as poetic philosopher and Orson Pratt as science educator and theologian forming Church doctrine and the scripture canon, to instead a series of LDS leaders who are mostly lawyers and businessmen. This is a result of the more bureaucratic godhead and interpretive lens of Young on down down to McConkie. In recent times, there's been resurgent of LDS scholarship and poets like a Terryl Givens. But the top LDS leadership remains mired in the Brigham-McConkie mindset and the a Manualized corporate structure. I began to notice this on my mission in the 1990s, where there was a kind of business structure and salesmanship quality, a focus on "numbers" over a more slow amd genuine conversion or character development in the missionary himself. Some of my companions lacked Christian character but being good salesmen were promoted and approved of by my Mission President. 

Thus the Corporate Church unfortunately is more likely to produce a pharisaical type of Mormon, just like Jesus battled among the pharisaical Jews of his day with Jesus being a more mystical poetic Jew telling parabolic stories about caring for "the least of these."

As I discussed in this blog post, the fact that Orson Pratt attempted to insert new scripture into the D&C in the 1870s and 1890s, proves to me that in actuality the Scriptures itself promotes more the Pro-Body paradigm. 

Let's begin with a brief summary comparing the two worldviews. The Coroprate view being a product of Young to McConkie:

Coporate View:

Anti-science 

Pro-Body View:

Pro-science

Coporate View:

A concept of a companion Holy Ghost as marker of feeling "worthy" in contrast to feeling inadequate and "unworthy" based on a perfectionist path with zero security of what actually earn's one the status and label of perfect worthiness.

Pro-Body View:

The Holy Ghost as acting out a process of a fiery alchemy type transformation via the baptism of fire: as the literal transformation into a pneumatic ("noomatic") body by being saved by grace through faith and the merits of Christ alone; while enduring to the end as in growing more anti-fragile.

Coporate View:

The Godhead based on Brigham Young's early formation of a more bureaucratic council where Adam is our God.

Pro-Body View:

The Godhead as personages constituted by spirit atoms as a mystic-oriented empowering Godhead; similar to the ideas of Thomas Dick, Emerson, the Stoics, and Nietzche, etc. 

Coporate View:

The emphasis on the Spirit producing more feminine emotions in men in order to encourage more obedience to the male leaders.

Pro-Body View:

The Spirit as Fluid Nooma as both masculine and feminine energy, producing both the Strength of the Lord and Zion.

Manualized View:

Anselm and Calvinist Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory

Pro-Body View:

Skousen's Atonement Theory

 As I was doing the research for this blog series, I began to realize that everything changes when you start with the Pro-Body Godhead. For example, if you start with Jehovah is our Heavenly Father -- and not the new God "Elohim" as invented by Brigham Young through his version of the temple ritual: in order for him to present a more bureaucratic Godhead with Michael (Adam) as God -- and instead return to the Godhead of Scripture as produced by Joseph Smith and the theology of Orson Pratt, you get a less bureaucratic godhead and everything changes from there. 

With the Pro-Body Godhead, Jehovah is our Heavenly Father (as the LDS scholar Blake Ostler points out). Elohim is a word for the Council of Gods described in Abraham 4. Jesus becomes the literal son of Heavenly Father (Jehovah) and Heavenly Mother. Thus, Jesus says things like he who has seen me have seen the Father. He says this because they look almost identical, as He has the same divine genes of the Father-Jehovah, hence they look alike. This would by why the LDS painting The First Vision by Del Parson depicts Jesus and Father-Jehovah looking alike, as the painter likely based the painting off of the many descriptions of the Father and Son looking alike in scripture.

The Pro-Body Godhead also better explains the will of the Son being swallowed up by the will of the Father in Mosiah 15, as this would mean -- based on Pratt's theory of miny intelligences as self-moving powers -- that when Jesus' material body was being formed in the womb of Mary, the mini intelligence (agential spirit atoms) composing his human form began to contain the "will" of Father-Jehovah. For the miny intelligences constituting the personage of Father-Jehovah were expanded into the body of Jesus of Nazareth, thus he became "the Father and the Son," because He had a mixture of Mary's spirit atoms and Father-Jehovah's self-moving or willful spirit atoms. 

After doing a deep drive into what the Scriptures actually say about sex and purity, I realized that you not find the Protestant Purity Culture within the LDS Scriptures. Instead, The Protestant Fundamentalism of those like Joseph Fielding Smith was transposed onto Mormon Sculpture reinterpreting it. All that changes when you begin with the Fortunate Fall of the Book of Mormon and it's defining of sin based in the levitical law of the Old Testament (not Augustinian dogma of the Puritans); as the people of the Book of Mormon are still Jewish following the Mosaic law for most of the content of the Book of Mormon. Then with D&C 130, 131, 132, as added scripture by Orson Pratt, you have a complete reevaluation of morality where Protestant Puritanism is rejected, and the Old Testament sexual ethic is restored. This leads to the Happiness Letter and Parley Pratt's essay Intelligence and Affections. For with God the Father Himself having a body of flesh, the sectarian god without parts or passions (which caused the Christian believer to despise their own body) is corrected and Bodily Life is affirmed through Pratt canonizing D&C 130:22. When this combined with the D&C 131:7-8, that all matter or atoms are spirit matter or spirit atoms, then you don't not have room for the Augustinian Calvinist dogma of All Flesh is depraved; for All Flesh is holy being composed of the Holy Spirit as miny intelligences. So the Augustinian idea of inherited sin through the sex act itself is rejected not just in the Book of Mormon but in the Articles of Faith. Furthermore, atonement theory is recalculated as well and there is no more room for penal substitutionary atonement with the theory of many intelligences as Cleon Skousen explains in his Talk. 

This removes any space for perfection-seeking of a "worthy" title, because as I explain in my blog series on true theosis or deification, what is actually happening during the process of salvation and exaltation, is the miny intelligence or spirit atoms are morphing the material atoms human soul into a glorious noomatic soul beginning after the baptism of fire. 

When one understands that Orson Pratt was likely trying to curb any autocratic tendencies in future Leaders by canonizing D&C 121, with the section on condemning unrighteous dominion, you can see that Pratt likely did this based on his theory of spirit atoms. As in, according to this blog post summarising Andrew Miles, LDS theology would have it that God works within a relationship with the spirit atoms in an up-building synergistic process; so not through domineering and manipulating,  but through building a relationship of trust, gentle persuasion and voluntary compliance. 

Even plural marriage is re-understood, becoming in my view the process of up-building a People, by actually selecting for certain genes and personality traits in order to better up-build a core base for what would become the Mormon People, which I discuss in my blog series Respecting your Heritage & The Selective Birthing of the Mormon People as a Quasi-Ethnic Cultural Identity and a Peoplehood. From this point of view, the meaning of mini intelligences working within cells and DNA, would be in part a selection process of higher men, noblemen, practicing polygamy in the 1800s in order to filter the noblest mini intelligence or genomes into future generations of Mormons. This would explain why the Book of Mormon speaks of polygamy being allowed only for raising up a righteous seed (i.e. "good genes"); and it's why the Book of Mormon describes the "seed" of one set of brothers (Laman and Lemuel) growing into spiritually dark and degenerative people or culture, and Nephi's seed producing a people that at first flourishes in righteousness. Yet, descending from a righteous seed or pioner stock does not guarantee that you will not degenerate into wickedness as well. However, it does mean you will inherit certain spiritual traits that will give you a "leg up" in my opinion. We in fact have evidence of this as a discussed in my birthing the Mormon People blog series, where I show that in fact LDS are more agreeable and conscientious, i.e. more Christian or civil, kind, giving, charitable, and capable of orchestrating a Peoplehood. 

So it's not about a top-down bureaucratic manualized control system, but a ground up, up-building of spirit atoms and cells and DNA to produce the Mormon People. Producing a People with a deep rooted devotion to their ancestry, turning the minds of the sons to the fathers and the fathers to future sons, etc. So it does not need as much top down control because there is a genealogical devotion to one's ancestry and Future People. In other words, the individual soul with free will and the Great God -- via miny intelligences within righteous human genomes who worship (i.e. revere the attributes of) the personages of the Father and Christ -- all orchestrate something closer to the ideal of Zion. 

According to scholars, Brigham Young tried to snub Orson Pratt from his rightful line in seniority of succession to becoming one of the next LDS Pesidents, because Young was trying to position his own sons into leadership and block Orson. As I cover in this blog post, Orson was likely trying to course correct this process of "leadership worship" -- and undying loyalty to the President which could result in authoritarianism -- by publishing D&C 121 as scripture. Unfortunately, Brigham Yong ignored the new scripture against "unrighteous dominion" and went on to establish his the concept of the godhead as more of a bureaucratic structure. So when James Talmage was commissioned to deal with the tension in ideas between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, he went more with Brigham Young and the establishedment, and kept the godhead structure of Brigham Young for the most part. 

As a result of the beuacratic godhead and punishing Orson Pratt with losing his seniority, one can see how things began to change historically: how many LDS Leaders had previously felt free to speak up and even disagree more freely. Joseph Smith himself is on record saying that he does not like to be tremelled and we do not have Creeds like the sectarians. Many leaders would question and doubt and even leave the Church and come back and not have that affect their seniority. But when Brigham Young changed things it struck fear into all future LDS Leaders and so you had less creativity and innovation, and more dogmatic rigidity. You had more leaders becoming businessmen and lawyers, people already likely to be more rigid and stiff in their personality, making it so Brigham Young's racist seed of Cain dogma he inherited from Protestantism, would last in the LDS church for over a decade. 

The good news is that when we return to the original Godhead of the Pro-Body paradigm, you begin to see that Mormonism comes alive and is bright and beautiful and less rigid, gloomy and pharisaical. 

We can see that this is flowering forth here and there, for example in 2021 an Area 70 condemned the Augustinian shaming puritanical attitude of past LDS leaders. You have many LDS Scholars publishing books through the Church owned Deseret bookstores, publishing books like the Givens' book All Things New, which aligns more with the concept of holy mini-intelligences and so we are not depraved and sin cursed. A lot of Scholars like Terryl and Fiona Givens are trying to counteract the former shame based puritanical culture, which grow out of Joseph Fielding  Smith's Protestant-Fundamentalism and Brigham's underlying bureaucratic structure: which became a business and like any business producing commercials that make people feel unworthy and inadequate unless they buy the product, Corporatized and Protestantized Mormonism through Brigham's godhead and Protestant-Fundamentalism, became a "purity culture" structure, a shame and tame loyalty or else system to a large degree. Members began to worship the "Brethren" more than the attritubutes of God and the gospel principles and values described in scripture. I call this Brethrenism. 

The bureaucratic structure in the correlation system and the policies began to shame the human body just like Augustine did and commericals do to sell a product. So books like All things New and this area 70 above, are trying to return to the original Mormon Doctrine and LDS scripture: where we are not punished for Adam's transgression, in other words we do not inherit an original sin; and so there is nothing to seek to be "worthy" of, as we are all made permanently worthy through the merits of Christ and the baptism of fire. So that the purpose of the Christian path is to simply grow into maturity in Christ having his divine genome and his sharing of his miny intelligences (spirit atoms) with our soul body; as we grow more and do good continually by walking in the dust of Rabbi Jesus. So it's not about chasing a worthiness label or status and trying to be pure or perfect but realizing we are good enough and enduring hardships gowing stronger through Christ who strengthens us. 

With the original Godhead from scripture produced by Smith and Pratt, it removes any sense of scrupuliosity, for one cannot feel unhealthy shame when they are composed of the Great God, the Holy Spirit. For if one is in fact composed of miny intelligences there is no room for feeling shame or scrupuliosity. For one's instictive drives are the product of the miny intelligences or spirit atoms, and so one is simply called to dominion, to undergo a process of learning to orchestrate and manage these natural drives so that one overcomes the "natural man," the impulsive, selfish, and greedy man, etc., and learns to do good continually and build the atmosphere of Zion. So that it's not as Augustine emphasized, a focus on despising the sexual organs, but a focus on building good character. 

The Pro-Body Godhead theology completely reorients things back to the original LDS Movement, when people did not even attend church chapels but met in homes or outside and the focus was on the temple itself which according to Don Bradley was ultimately about enforcing bonds of friendship. 

In this view of the Godhead, one can commune with God anywhere, as the diffuse substance of the Holy Spirit, the Deity of Lecture 2, is an omnipresent presence. Thus Jesus, through the omnipresent nooma, is wherever two or three are gathered together in His name. So you do not need to only go to a church chapel to commune with God. This is why some Restoration movements have formed home churches and take communion in each other's homes. This would fit with the Pro-Body model. It is only the corporate structure that demands one attend a chapel building to be considered "worthy," which again is a control mechanism (unrighteous dominion in my view) based on the corporate structure of the authoritarianism. 

In the Pro-Body Godhead paradigm, people instead simply want to go to church and go to church of their own free will because there is ideally a genuine atmosphere of Zion and authentic bonding in genuine friendships. In such an atmosphere there would be less of a need to demand church attendance through unrighteous dominion: like making an LDS member feel like they could lose access to the temple or not be able to baptize their child with their priesthood removed, if an ecclesiastical leader deemed them "unworthy." I think this is why Pratt added D&C 122 to the canon, to avoid such coercive methods. 

Problem-solving 'intelligence' in cells & Molecular intelligence as Agential Material: A Case for Cells, Atoms, Quarks, Strings, & Spirit Matter

 In New intelligence model could upend biology, genetics, medicine and AI by Loz Blain, we learn about basically a form of intelligence in biology which adds some evidence to the possibility of agential "spirit atoms" as taught by the apostles Orson Pratt and John Widstoe. Consider these excerpts from the interesting article:

Picasso tadpoles" with scrambled facial features successfully rearrange themselves into normal-looking frogs, showing a flexible kind of problem-solving 'intelligence' as opposed to a rigid DNA-driven set of growth instructions ... 

 

... Levin and his collaborators have done on 'Xenobots' – freeing groups of cells from their organisms and allowing them to self-assemble into entirely new creatures, which use their cellular intelligence and bioelectrical communication to develop their own unique behaviors – or can be externally designed and programmed. ... 

 

Molecular intelligence

Levin's team has broadened its focus beyond just looking at living cells, finding that the subroutine patterns that can get part of a job done apparently nest all the way down to the molecular level.

"All of these levels," he tells Maynard, "are made up of sub-agents that solve problems in various spaces; anatomical space, physiological space, whatever – and they have different competencies and different agendas. Each layer is taking advantage of what I call this agential material – you have to engineer it very differently than you would engineer passive, or even active matter.

"And it goes even below cells. I mean, we're studying the learning capacities of molecular networks. Never mind whole cells, even the molecular networks have probably at least six different kinds of learning capacity.

"We need to have some kind of way of talking about molecular systems as having intelligence, because we have to be able to tell a story of scaling. We all start life as an unfertilized ova, a little blob of chemistry and physics. And there's no lightning bolt that at some point says 'ok, you were physics, but now you're a real mind.' We need a paradigm for how intelligence scales from simpler forms.

"The kind of intelligence that I'm talking about is the kind that William James defined as same goal by different means. So it's really a navigational intelligence. It's a publicly observable, perfectly empirically testable, problem-solving capacity. I am not talking about consciousness, I am not talking about self-aware meta-intelligence where you know how intelligent you are, I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about the ability to navigate a problem space and get your goals met, despite various new things that are going to happen."

 

Intelligence emerges at multiple scales - from the molecular, to the cellular, to the organism, to the swarm and even to the ecosystem level, writes LevinJeremy Guay/Peregrine Creative & Rosenbluth et al

 From this evidence, I don't find it hard to believe that below the cell is the atom and quarks and strings according to string theory and then agential spirit atoms. As pictured below:

(Source)

 

The Will to Knowledge and Power & Life Affirmation: Excerpts from "Toward a Mormon Metaphysics" by Andrew Miles

 The following are excerpts from Toward a Mormon Metaphysics: Scripture, Process Theology, and the Mechanics of Faith by Andrew Miles. Words in brackets are my own:

... In this essay I will reference two persons in particular, John A. Widtsoe and Parley P. Pratt. Both of these men sought to create a grand narrative which explained God, the universe, and everything in it.[1] ... 

... The Doctrine and Covenants records that “[m]an was . . . in the beginning with God,” then explains that “man is spirit.”[2] ... The Doctrine and Covenants also describes a second material existing alongside eternal spirits by stating that “[t]he elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy.”[4] ... The Doctrine and Covenants also describes a third aspect of existence, something it calls “intelligence.” “Intelligence,” which it defines as “the light of truth,” is likewise eternal, for it “was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”[5] ... a later revelation declares that “[t]here is no such thing as immaterial matter” and hence “[a]ll spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.”[6]

... In a book of LDS scripture, the book of Abraham ... [the] text describes Abraham as he learns the secrets of the universe from God. He is told that “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.”[7] Later in the same text, however, “intelligence” is used to indicate a distinct consciousness, a type of pre-mortal person. It records that Abraham saw “the intelligences that were organized before the world was,’ and then describes them as “souls” and “spirits” that have the characteristics of being “noble” and “good.”[8] Here “intelligence” is used to express the same idea typically conveyed by “spirit.” Hence the term is used both to refer to a type or primal, spiritual person and to describe the mental capacity of such beings.[9] ... As a synonym for “spirit,” it [an intelligence] refers to a type of being which is composed of the more fundamental material of matter, as noted earlier. Must we then conclude, despite references to the eternality of man, that the elements are the only permanent feature of the universe?

Here Smith’s non-canonical remarks provide useful clarification. On one occasion, Smith taught that “[t]he mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.”[10] This suggests a third way that the term “intelligence” can be used, namely as a referent to the cognitive capacities that constitute an individual’s personal essence (as opposed to her material spirit). According to Smith, it is the mind/intelligence of a person, not necessarily the material spirit, that is eternal.

... “Intelligence,” then, can refer to two different aspects of the universe, only one of which, the mindversion, can be considered fundamental. The other referent, the material spirit of a person, is composed of elements and hence cannot be a primary substance. ... 

... once the terminological confusion is sorted through, it seems apparent that intelligence, defined as the eternally-existing mind or minds of persons, stand alongside the elements [spirit matter/atoms] as a type of primary material in the universe. 

Two important Mormon thinkers, John Widtsoe and Parley P. Pratt, recognized the duality inherent in the fundamental components of the cosmos, and each formulated a metaphysics that sought to incorporate element and intelligence into a coherent narrative. Widtsoe’s approach is the more complete of the two and has had the greatest impact on mainstream Mormon thought. ... 

... Matter, which Widtsoe uses interchangeably with the term “elements,” is paired with energy such that “[i]t is not conceivably possible to separate them.” Although Widtsoe is reticent to distinguish too concretely between the two (instead leaving open the possibility that matter is a form of energy or vice versa), he is clear that the two are invariably joined. He is more confident in positing that they are ultimately controlled by a universal intelligence ... he mentions the idea, if only to state that it cannot be affirmed, that “a degree of intelligence is possessed by every particle of energized matter,” an interesting approach that would suggest that the elements have a measure of thinking-capacity and lean more toward an conception of intelligence as being eternally individual. The second idea, which he seems more confident of, is that “energy is only a form of intelligence, and that matter and intelligence, rather than matter and energy, are the two fundamentals of the universe!”[13]

[The Will to Knowledge & Power]

In Widtsoe’s mind, the universe is governed by fixed laws, and primal persons develop by asserting their wills to learn and master the principles by which the cogs of the cosmos turn. This, in turn, increases their power, for as they understand more of the laws, they are better able to manipulate and utilize them.[14] God himself evolves by the same means, and his position as sovereign of the universe is a result of intense effort in ages past that resulted in “a conquest over the universe, which to our finite understanding seems absolutely complete.”[15] God, in turn, offers assistance to less advanced intelligences by conveying the knowledge that they need in order to progress more readily.[16] In the end, intelligences have the capacity to learn all the laws as did God, though “the understanding that will give [them] full mastery over nature will come little by little, yet,” Widtsoe predicts, “in the end, man shall know all that he desires.”[17] For Widtsoe, knowledge is the key development and power, and can be gained by any intelligence that exercises its will toward acquiring it.

Like Widtsoe, Parley P. Pratt envisions a cosmos in which intelligence and elements are fundamental, and in which the former exercises power over the later. In his words, “[t]he whole vast structure of universal organized existence, presents undeniable evidences of three facts, viz. – First. The eternal existence of the elements of which it is composed. Second. The eternal existence of the attributes of intelligence, and wisdom to design. Third. The eternal existence of power, to operate upon and control these eternal elements, so as to carry out the plans of the designer.” [18] Intelligence and power work in concert to form the elements into created works (persons, planets, etc.). In Pratt’s mind, the elements have innate “energies, attributes, or inherent powers” that are the basis for the “love, joy,” and similar emotions that intelligent spiritual beings (which we must remember are composed of matter) enjoy.[19] Presumably Pratt means that the combination of matter in certain ways allows such sentiments to be felt. Pratt does not indicate whether or not he endorses a view of intelligence as the mind of humans, co-eternal with God, for his use of the term in outlining the three fundamental facts of the universe describes intelligence as an attribute. He does adopt a more personal definition later on when he describes man as “an organized individual or intelligence,” but this description better fits the idea of “intelligence” being synonymous with a created and material “spirit.” In any event, he agrees with Widtsoe that these intelligences are meant to progress and are bound by laws, though he does not posit a metaphysical connection between the two, i.e. that laws facilitate advancement. On the contrary, he seems to see them almost as hurdles to be overcome. In his view, laws are imposed by God as a test of obedience. In the end, those pre-mortal persons who obey the laws of God will advance to a mortal probationary period, followed by a post-mortal interim of similar purpose. Having passed all of these tests, they will be placed in a position in which “all the elements necessary to [their] happiness . . . are placed within [their] lawful reach, and made subservient to [their] use.”[20] Having proven themselves worthy, dominance over the elements will be given to them, presumably by God. Thus while Widtsoe views laws as the metaphysicallyfixed mechanisms for advancement, Pratt sees them more as test of a person’s willingness to follow God. It is nonetheless significant that even with these differences, both thinkers fixed on elements and some understanding of intelligence as fundamental, and that both described a relationship of power between them.

... Widtsoe, at least, indicates that the concept of eternal laws provides a means by which the power dynamic can be understood, theorizing that intelligences that learn the laws will be able to manipulate the elements through their use. ...

MORMON METAPHYSICS AND PROCESS THOUGHT

... Fundamental to process [thought] understandings of the universe, unsurprisingly, is the idea that all reality is in process, or in other words, in a state of becoming. ...

... Process thinker C. Robert Mesle explains that for the simplest occasions – e.g. those making up electrons- the “capacity to ‘decide’” might be limited to a choice “between moving this way or that way.” As these simpler occasions combine into “societies of occasions,” more complex beings are formed which in turn develop “the capacity for moral thought and significant moral freedom.” ... Widtsoe states that “man in his primeval as in his present condition, possessing with all other attributes of intelligence, the power of will, exercised that will upon the contents of the universe. The reaction of the will upon the material universe within reach enabled intelligent beings, little by little, to acquire power. By the use of this will upon the contents of the universe, man must have become what he now is.”[26] For Widtsoe, the task of progression is one of domination, of attaining to “an intelligent control of nature.”[27] The universe is filled with “contents” that are to be acted upon. ...

[Mind-intelligences and Bodily Affirmation]

... Widtsoe himself suggests .... Matter, he states, “is always associated with energy,” which energy serves to “vivif[y]” it. This energy might be seen as “only a form of intelligence,” or in other words, as a rudimentary form of self-determination. Thus the idea that “a degree of intelligence is possessed by every particle of energized matter” which he so quickly dismisses as speculative provides a metaphysical means of assigning freedom to the most fundamental components of the universe.[28] Individual intelligences, each joined to an element particle, would have the ability to hear God’s call and freely respond. God’s power could be truly persuasive. The implications of this idea for an LDS metaphysics are profound ...

... The Doctrine and Covenants states as much: “spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy.”[29] ... This fits neatly with another LDS idea, albeit more speculative, that mind-intelligences were housed in material spirit bodies as one step in their progression.[30] Taking material form was seen as an advancement, not a hindrance. Consider also the vision of church president Joseph F. Smith who, in a vision of the afterlife, saw that “the dead . . . looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.”[31] These spirits, though arguably still material beings, nevertheless craved the enhanced sensations that a physical body provided. The underlying theme in all three of these examples is that intelligences and the intelligent beings they grow into are more fulfilled through connection to the elements. ...

[The Will to Growth & Glory]

 

... Widtsoe also believes in the possibility of self-limitation, for in describing spiritual beings he explains that “[t]hrough the exercise of their wills they grew, remained passive, or retrograded, for with living things motion in any direction is possible.”[33] The same idea is expressed in The Doctrine and Covenants, where a person’s eternal state of glory is determined by his thoughts and actions while on the earth. Those not marrying by priesthood authority, for example, “are appointed angels in heaven,” for they “did not abide [God’s] law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly . . . forever and ever.”[34] In this view, intelligences stop progressing at different points due to choices that they make. ...

... Another possibility is that intelligences are innately limited. Such an approach might be indicated by a passage in the book of Abraham. One verse states that “[t]hese two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they.” This description indicates that spiritual beings are not all equally intelligent, the implication being that this inequality creates a gradation of thought capacities and abilities. God governs because he is “more intelligent than they all.”[35] ...

... there is always the possibility that intelligences that end up as lesser beings originally had the potential of infinite progression but early on made choices that severely limited them, and only at that point were they assigned to be the spirits of animals and the like. In either case, whether intelligences are self-limiting or inherently limited, the important point is that the idea of intelligences being limited is not contradicted by LDS scripture and is, indeed, supported by it. 

... For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that reasons exist within LDS thought to believe that intelligences can be paired with the elements and, indeed, have a compelling reason for being so joined. More importantly, a union of intelligences with elements provides a metaphysical reason for believing that the universe, down to its smallest intelligence/element pairs, has some degree of freedom.

[Trusting "Spirit Atoms" & God's Righteous Dominion]

...  From a basic understanding of faith as trust and the power it apparently possesses, interesting questions arise. How is it that faith/trust relates to power? Can it be seen as a metaphysical mechanism for exercising influence? It is here that the ideas proposed in the previous section offer the greatest illumination. Recall that joining intelligences with particles of matter provides a means of affirming a basic level of self-determination to every component of the universe. This, in turn, allows for a God that works through persuasive influence rather than through domination. Consider the following scenario. God, wanting to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man,” decides to assist underdeveloped intelligences in their advancement.[45] Knowing that material existence is the path to progression and enjoyment, he urges an intelligence to join with a particle of some element.[46] The intelligence, at whatever level of thought it is capable of, decides that God is trustworthy. This may be because, as Widtsoe suggests, God “exercised his will vigorously . . . [and] his recognition of universal laws became greater until he attained at last a conquest over the universe” and this mastery reassures it of God’s competence.[47] Perhaps the intelligence also senses that God has its best interest at heart. In any case, it trusts God, so when he gives a command to or offers to pair that intelligence up with an element of matter, it consents. Furthermore, when God decides that several of these pairs need to combine to make more complex molecules and structures, each participating intelligence again decides to trust God, i.e. to have faith in God, and so they combine. (Similarly, if and when God commands the intelligences to break apart or perform some other action, they trust that God knows what is best and comply.) As more and more intelligence/element pairs combine, more complex structures are created to which more advanced intelligences can be joined, and so on up the intelligence chain until we see the formation of organisms that humans would recognize as having some ability to choose, like animals. Yet at no point is the freedom of intelligences circumvented, and they are forever able to choose for themselves. In such a scheme, God surely has power over the universe, but that power comes because intelligences trust and choose to follow him. God’s power comes from their faith in him. This is consistent with other descriptions of influence found in Mormon scripture. Section 121 of The Doctrine and Covenants describes the principles upon which power should be exercised. “[T]he powers of heaven,” it states, “cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” Those who “undertake to cover [their] sins, or to gratify [their] pride, [their] vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness” are deemed untrustworthy, and their power is removed. Others, however, realize that “power or influence . . . ought to be maintained . . . only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned,” as well as by “kindness, and pure knowledge.” These attributes, in contrast to the previous set, make a person worthy of trust, and hence others can have faith in him/her. The result for those who so act is a “dominion [that] shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto [them] forever and ever.”[48] Dominion by this definition is never forced, but comes as a voluntary offering of those being governed, persons who are content to obey because they have complete faith in the person they are following. While the principles described in this section are given as a description of mortal power relations, the fact that they can produce results that last “forever and ever” indicates that they also have application in the larger universe. Indeed, they complement the idea of God using persuasive power. If persons will willingly follow another human who displays noble characteristics, is it not reasonable to conclude that they, and all self-determining components of the universe, would be willing to trust and obey the being that possesses those attributes in perfection?

... Thus when Jesus and his disciples were caught in a storm on the Sea of Galilee, they were only seeing nature acting as it normally does. Yet when Jesus arose and “rebuked the wind and the raging of the water,” the pairs recognized him as an authoritative and trustworthy source, chose to comply with his command, and altered their normal activities. In this regard, Jesus’ calming of the seas need not be seen as a violation of natural law, but rather a manifestation of a higher principle. ... the prophet Jacob who said that with “unshaken” faith people can “command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey [them], or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.”53 This method of exercising faith seems more direct, for the human agent directly commands the natural world with the anticipation that it will respond. In this scenario, intelligence/element pairs respond directly to a human, not to Christ who is acting at a human’s request. ...

Orson Pratt on The Oneness of God, the First Cause or Supreme Power of Lecture on Faith #2

From the forum thread, Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God, started by wayfarer (retrieved July 3, 2024):

A wayfarer posts the following (words in brackets are my own):

Posted February 19, 2013

I am fascinated by Orson Pratt's explanation of the nature of pre-existent Gods, found in "The Seer", Volume 1, Number 2, "Preexistence of Man", paragraph 22:

22. All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God [compare Lectures on Faith #5]. "God is Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. [Compare D&C 88, 93, and 131:7-8] Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance [of the Holy Spirit or Great First Cause], but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them. If the fulness of truth, dwells in numberless millions of persons, then the same one indivisible God dwells in them all. As truth can dwell in all worlds at the same instant; therefore, God who is truth can be in all worlds at the same instant. A temple of immortal flesh, and bones, and spirit, can only be in one place at a time, but truth, which is God, can dwell in a countless number of such temples in the same moment.

When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which alone we worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship.

It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore; these are the same in all worlds; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God. Because God dwells in many temples. He frequently speaks to us, as though there were many Gods: this is true when reference is made to the number of His dwelling places; but it is not true, and cannot be true, in any other sense.

Therefore, in all our future statements and reasonings, when we speak of a plurality of Gods, let it be distinctly understood, that we have reference alone to a plurality of temples wherein the same truth or God dwells. And also when we speak of only one God, and state that He is eternal, without beginning or end, and that He is in all worlds at the same instant, let it be distinctly remembered, that we have no reference to any particular person or substance, but to truth dwelling in a vast variety of substances.

Wherever you find a fulness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love, and such like qualities, there you find God in all His glory, power, and majesty, therefore, if you worship these adorable perfections you worship God.

Wayfarer follows this up with his view saying:

I think Pratt demonstrates that the universal attributes of God are what makes any given god[,] God. This idea, that the universals are what constitute the unchanging attributes of god[s] make it possible to speak of God as being one, while in fact a god-being is instantiated in the many. The fundamental premise is that the universals are truly the eternal Godness, and not the being of God.

This solves a number of problems in Mormon Theology, and I think that was what Pratt was trying to do. First, if we say that God the Father was once a man like us, then it begs the question, in at least one iteration, who was God's Father/God? Who was, then, the actual "First Cause" that philosophers and apologists (like William Lane Craig) proclaims as the original, necessary being? Was Elohim simultaneously a God who was once man and also the First Cause? Does that even remotely make sense?

Pratt makes the point that there cannot be disunity if any number of god beings [who] are united with the God universals. They, by definition, operate as one. One can say "God is One", knowing that at the same time, any being in possession of the universal attributes is one in mind and purpose with all that is. It isn't to say that this is a monad, nor is it pantheism, but rather, that the God attributes are indeed ubiquitious, but the beings that are gods are individual in both time and place.

To me it's a fascinating view. ...

 

... When we accept LDS principles on the nature of God, that he has an exalted human body, that there are a plurality of god beings, that we have an inherent, uncreated divine nature -- literally a substance (since all spirit is substance), that is uncreated, and that we may ultimately become gods, then coming to an understanding of how that might be the case is an effort worth pursuing.

Pratt was remarkably consistent in his understanding of Sections 88 and 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all there in the D&C.

This adds confirmation to my post here on how Orson Pratt himself was who made D&C 131:7 into canonized scripture! Wayfarer then says later:

The prevailing LDS (and Christian) paradigm of God is that "THE God" is the First Cause of all that is, either through organization (LDS) or ex nihilo (mainstream Christian). The reason for using the term paradigm is that this core concept becomes the basis of the entire ontology of that which we call god, and from that ontology, how we interpret prophecy, scripture, and priesthood.

Orson Pratt's statement in The Seer defines an alternative paradigm from the mainstream Christian god-concept. The universal attributes he describes as being 'God' are what makes a god, God. Therefore the universals are eternal, as is matter. When a being embodies the universals, that being is God, both "One" in the sense of common universal attributes, as well as distinctive in terms of a single god in time and space.

The alternative paradigm in Orson Pratt's statement is that the universals create the being of God, not the other way around. The collective aggregate of these universals, that is to say, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is to be the fully-realized being of God: the I AM. We can say that these collective universals are "The Way", as that is what the original followers of Jesus Christ called themselves: Followers of the Way. And, by following the Way, gradually developing the universal attributes of Life, Truth, and Intelligence, the follower can "be" a god in this life in the moment (Jn 10, Ps 82), and become a god in the life to come. Thus, as God was and perhaps is also a 'follower of the Way', then the being that we know as God became God at some point in time and space.

This creates a fundamental, paradigmatic question: Does the Way preceed God or does God preceed the Way? Another way to put it: which came first, God? or The Way?

In the mainstream Christian ontology of God, an uncreated God decreed the universals and thus caused (Cosmological argument) all things in the universe according to his design (Teleological argument). He created all things, all law, all attributes "from nothing"/"ex nihilo". To the mainstream definition of God, God is beyond being, and was the First Cause of all that is, including the Way (whatever that is in Christian thinking, is unclear).

LDS theology (whatever that may be) materially (pun intended) differs from this point of view. God does not create ex nihilo. Elements are eternal, and 'The Gods" (as in the Book of Abraham) organized these elements. Mankind has both contingent as well as necessary being, in that at least a portion of man -- his intelligence, is uncreated and eternal.

Importantly, the term "intelligence" is singular in all of scripture EXCEPT in the book of Abraham. In section 93, intelligence is defined as both "Light and Truth" as well as being the glory of God. This defines "intelligence" clearly as a universal, not as a particular. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Abraham, he fundamentally added to the meaning of "intelligence", creating a particular instance of the universal "intelligence". This has profound theological implications as to the divine nature of mankind. If man is an etermal possessor of intelligence, than man is a necessary and not a contingent being. ...

... To say that the universal attributes exist independently of the person, and thus can be worshiped outside of the person indeed doesn't make sense, and that is not what Pratt is saying. Love is not a thing or a being that we can worship by itself. Pratt suggests we worship the attribute only as it exists within the person. As well, "intelligence" is not a thing (although the Book of Abraham conflates the term a bit), but rather an attribute of a being. When a being posesses the attributes of Love or Intelligence in large measure, we respect the being not because of the being itself, but the fact that the being possesses that attribute.

Pratt takes this to the ideal of the attribute. When a being possesses Love, Intelligence, etc., in infinite measure, then that being is God. He says the ideal attributes (to use another name "universals") are eternal and absolute. He says that a being can become a possessor of the universal, ideal attributes. In so doing, the being 'becomes' God, and is thus worthy of worship by virtue of the attributes alone.

Likewise, we honor the [LDS] Prophet -- we don't worship him, because we don't worship "men" in that way. We honor and respect, even to the point of exact obedience, when the Prophet does what prophets are supposed to do: Prophesy -- that is, speaks for the Lord. At that moment, when the Prophet is speaking for the Lord, he is essentially equivalent to the Lord. He possesses all the attributes necessary to speak for the Lord.

But unlike Gods who are inseparably connected between body and spirit, and inseparably imbued with the universals that make them gods, the Prophet, or any mortal man, is only able to be equivalent to the Lord in the moment -- there is no persistence of godness in man ...

... If...we have a paradigm that there are eternal attributes, collectively called "The Way", and that godness, indeed, all goodness, prophecy, priesthood, and structure in this life emerges from a harmony with the Way, then a host of things make sense:

- Scripture is not "top-down" declared, but rather, the light of the gospel emerges as holy men discover it through inspiration. Scripture is necessarily incomplete and insufficient to save us, as Jesus pointed out in John 5:39: "(Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (The "Ye" at the beginning is most important, is implied in the greek text, and completely changes this from the LDS interpretation of a commandment to "Search the Scriptures" to the fact that the Pharisees and Saducees did that all day long and missed the entire point: The tesimony of Jesus Christ emerges from the scripture.) 

- Structure in the church is not a completed effort, but rather, emerges and evolves over time as we come to understand truth better and better.

[Compare D&C 1:24 where the Lord says His commands in scripture are given unto the reader in "their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."]

- A snapshot of beliefs at one point in time (i.e. "The New Testanent", or "The Book of Mormon") is never going to be the definitive "gospel", because over time, our understanding improves as we learn.

- A single definition of the Gospel is never definitive, but rather, the gospel light may emerge from all expression of scripture to the extent that the writers of those scriptures are in harmony with the universal attributes of God. Hence the necessity of ongoing revelation in any church that carries the attribute 'true'. (As well, we define the "Rock" not as "Peter", but rather, as "Revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul defined this as the essential way to receive the Gospel - through revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ in Galatians 1).

- The oneness of God does not depend upon a dictatorial top-down structure, but rather is defined by the unity of being congruent with the Way. If God the Father and Jesus Christ both define themselves as congruent to the Way, then, mathematically, spiritually, and actually, God the Father = Jesus Christ = The Way in the unity of being God.

- Gospel truths are progressive rather than conservative. As Jesus progressed beyond the ritualistic aspects of the Torah and taught a new law, Paul went a step further to push toward an anti-nomian Church that the original 12 apostles were not initially capable of accepting. Likewise, Joseph not only restored the Church, but progressed it beyond where it was in the time of Christ. Such progressive increases in understanding and growth seem lacking today in a prevailingly conservative, dogmatic Church.

And most importantly, as we recognize that the divinity of our Prophets, Scriptures, priesthood, institutions are emergent rather than "designed", we can realize that many of the faults of our history, scripture, and current leadership are all inevitably part of being human. It's meaningless to say, for example, that "God wouldn't allow the prophet to lie," because God does not mandate. Agency, the ability to emerge order through learning from our own experience to discern the Way, becomes the fully operative model of this world. We can stop trying to defend a history that needs no defense. We can embrace the humanity of the Church and scriptures for what they are.

 

Wayfarer however, does make other comments in this thread that I disagree with, like him not thinking the Book of Abraham in The Pearl of Great Price should be canonized scripture. But I agree with what he has to say as quoted above.

 

A Summary & Excerpts from "Orson Pratt and the Expansion of the Doctrine and Covenants" by Brian C. Passantino (2020)

The following is my comments  and excerpts  from Orson Pratt and the Expansion of the Doctrine and Covenants by Brian C. Passantino (2020): 

In the beginning of his thesis Passantino writes:

... Before Smith died in 1844, he oversaw the collection and dissemination of his most essential and authoritative revelations and teachings as contained within the Doctrine and Covenants.

Passantino says his thesis seems to uncover the rationale for Orson Pratt adding the revelations and teachings that he was asked to add to the 1876 Doctrine & Covenants.

On page 3-4, he says that in the 1870s, Orson Pratt spearheaded the expansion of the D&C and 

its most radical change since the death of Smith. He added an additional twenty six revelations to the doctrinal corpus. ... I assert that there were three major influences or factors that informed Pratt's canonical additions to the text of the Doctrine and Covenants. The first influence was his immensely complicated relationship with Brigham Young, then president of the Church. The second factor was his desire to preserve popular revelations and further the priorities of the Church.

 

In my own words, not Passantino's, I see it as a way to outsmart Brigham Young and retain certain doctrines that counteracted Brigham's ideas like his Adam God Theory.

On page Passantino emphasizes how there were differences in personality and temperament between Young and Pratt; for example Pratt was "an intellectual of the highest order. He used  scientific theories combined with scriptures to come to reasoned conclusions. This was in stark contrast to Brigham Young...[who] never felt the need to square his doctrinal pronouncements with the scriptures." This is of course what sustained Young's Adam God doctrine for decades, in that he was not relying on reason or scriptural authority when teaching that Adam was God but relying on his own will and opinions by appealing to being a "living oracle" as President of the Church. 

On page 8, Passantino points out that Orson added "more revelations from Smith about the United Order, his economic utopian idea, which Young and his contemporaries would refer to as the 'Order of Enoch."

On page 12, he points out that Orson Pratt is recognized by historians for being an intellectual acumen and producing a scientific theology. When he was alive he was basically considered the St. Paul of Mormonism because like Paul he wrote extensively about the doctrine and theology of the Church in the form of pamphlets which had a major influence on the Church. Passantino states that according to the scholar Barlow, Pratt "felt constrained by the canon of scripture and sought to align his doctrinal beliefs within its confines." Passantino then writes: "My research takes this a step further and shows that Pratt's anxiety about squaring his beliefs with scripture may have influenced him to canonize scripture [in the 1870s] that helped lend credence to his non-canonical beliefs." In my own words, the pre-1870 canon of scripture did not contain sections of scripture like D&C 130, 131, 132, which talked about spirit matter/atoms for example, which provided canonical authority for Pratt’s theology. While acknowledging that Orson Pratt believed in continual revelation Passantino writes  that Pratt also placed a great degree of authority in the written word of scripture. On page 15, Passantino's writes:

My research suggests that the canonical expansion in the 1870s may have been a way to guard the Church from Young's doctrinal conjecture and re-emphasize the authority of the written word. Pratt saw the cannon as indispensable for the benefit of the Church and recognized the ephemerality of Young's teachings relative to this solidity of canonized scripture.

Passantino goes on to point out that after first questioning polygamy, Pratt went on to be the central mouthpiece in defending plural marriage. After Joseph Smith died in 1844, Orson Pratt was the primary actor in the decisions of the Church and was quickly recognized as the foremost teacher and interpreter of Mormon Doctrine. On page 17, Passantino writes "... his work on the Doctrine and Covenants is perhaps his most lasting [legacy, even] if heretofore underappreciated ..." In other words, Pratt's formation of the new Doctrine and Covenants editions between 1870 and 1900 canonized new content from Joseph  Smith that were formerly unpublished as scripture, which affected the future of Mormon doctrine by giving concepts like the Father God's physical  embodiment and spirit matter (or "spirit atoms"), scriptual authority.

Passantino notes that it was by the counsel of President Brigham Young that Pratt did all this, as a collaborative effort, and yet it's clear to me that Pratt's work was mostly his own as Young lacked the intellectual acumen necessary to fully oversee the process. But Young did oversee things, for example Young and Pratt both decided to divide the various revelations into verses. So it looks like it was a collaboration between Young and Pratt throughout the process (see pages 17-18).

On page 21 we learn that Pratt wanted The Pearl of Great Price to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants but when he asked the leadership if that could be done, suggesting that the Lectures on Faith be omitted from the D&C to make room for the Pearl of Great Price, his request was denied. Passantino assumes this is because the Lectures on Faith may have conflicted with Smith’s later 1840s teachings on the Godhead. I disagree with Passantino, I think the Lectures instead contributed to his Godhead theology. But it is very interesting to learn that at one point the 12 Apostles refused to remove the Lectures on Faith, when they would later be removed in 1921 after James Talmage was commssioned to form the final orthodox doctrine on the Godhead in 1916. In my view, the removal of the Lectures in 1921 was unnecessary: because Pratt's footnotes in the 1891 D&C in sections 130 and 131, drew the reader to the Lectures, which combined with Pratt's pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism -- explaining the doctrine of the Godhead -- also footnoted in the 1891 D&C section 131, provided a coherent Godhead theology, which I will discuss below.

On page 25, Passantino says that he "will demonstrate that many of the sections that Orson Pratt added to the Doctrine and Covenants were most definitely influenced by his relationship with Brigham Young."

On page 31 to 36, Passantino points out the Orson Hyde was the senior apostle and Pratt was next in line to become Church President after Brigham Young died, but Young changed the order of seniority making it so Hyde and Pratt would not be Church President. According to Passantino this was because both Hyde and Pratt had brief periods  of doubt and questioned Smith and left the Church, but they did later rejoin and were loyal afterward; nevertheless Young decided to set an example of them making it so anyone else in the future would not want to be disloyal or leave the Church because you could lose your seniority. It did not matter to Young that Hyde and Pratt had "repented" and come back to the Church and had been loyal for decades. 

Unrighteous Dominion 

Passantino goes on to point out that several leaders of the Church expressed dissatisfaction with Young's leadership style. Passantino points out that it may have been the authoritarian tendencies of Young that led Pratt to introduce certain texts into the canon of scripture. For example, while in Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith wrote a long letter expressing his anguish at his condition, Pratt chose to only include about 40% of the letter and part of the letter he included was likely a result of his reacting to Brigham Young's authoritarianism when Orson Pratt included from the letter what became D&C 121: 34-40 about "unrighteous dominion." Passantino writes on page 35-36 that this section can be read as 

Pratt appropriating the words of Joseph Smith to renounce the authoritative liberties taken by his prophetic president Brigham Young. This point becomes clearer as one begins to understand the instances that Pratt believe Young had exceeded his prophetic mandate.

 

One of the first major theological disagreements of the two men had was over Young's promulgation of a speculative doctrine about Adam [being] God. ... 

Passantino goes on to explain that basically Pratt rejected Brigham's doctrine that Adam was God, saying it was against the scriptural revelations of Smith. But Young said that he got the idea from Smith yet Young had no scriptural backing for this assertion. Passantino writes on pages 36-37 that 

Young went beyond Smith's authority and emphasized his own by stating that the doctrine was the way he presented it "in the name of the Lord." At one point in their argumentation, Pratt made clear that he "preferred to receive the written revelations of [Joseph Smith]." Pratt utilized Smith's teachings and revelations to refute Young's doctrinal beliefs and to combat instances where he believed Young's speculative doctrine had run amok. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Pratt would use his project of expanding the Doctrine and Covenants to serve a similar purpose, namely, to curb the autocratic excesses of his prophet, Brigham Young. This doctrinal conflict highlights some of the differences in their approaches toward authority.

Passantino goes on to say that while Pratt himself engaged in some speculation he always did so by aligning his ideas with the scriptures and Joseph Smith's revelations while Young relied mostly only on his subjective opinion. Pratt believed in the superiority of modern revelation but also believed he could disprove Young's theological assertions by the Scriptures. When Pratt spoke he couched his talks in the language of scripture, science and scholarship, while Young referred to the scriptures sparingly and spoke more pragmatically.  Passantino points out on pages 37-38 that

These differences in approach shed light on Pratt's expansion of the Doctrine and Covenants. Pratt instinctively believed that even though modern revelation took precedence over former revelation, that canonized text mattered much more than Young seemed to realize. Pratt knew that the content of Young's seemingly innumerable sermons was ephemeral [unlasting] and that canonizing the faith's beliefs in scripture would have a much more lasting impact.

Both Pratt and Young had a stake to claim in defining the deity for the faith.

 I think this is why when Young died, Pratt strategically put a footnote to D&C 131: 7 directing the reader to his pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism. Builing off of Joseph Smith's pro-science ideas, Pratt was seeking to produce a scientific theology by combining the Lectures on Faith with Joseph Smith's later teachings in the 1840s. He goes on to point out that both men engaged in a theological battle with Brigham teaching Adam was God and Pratt producing pamphlets presenting a Godhead theology that better aligned with the scriptures Joseph produced. Young considered Pratt's views to contain "false doctrines" and pushed for the Adam-is-God dogma. 

Young's main issue was apparently the doctrine of the Holy Spirit being a diffused substance which constitutes (forms) the personages of the Father and Son. Young saw this as placing the Holy Spirit above the Father and Son. Reading this part of the thesis, I found it ironic that Young would feel this way when he had flat out replaced Jehovah as the God of this earth by replacing him with Adam as our Heavenly Father. Furthermore, Pratt's theology of an omnipresent substance called the Holy Spirit aligns with the doctrine of the Lectures on Faith which Joseph Smith himself re-read and approved of as doctrinal scripture just before he died in 1844.

On pages 38-42, Passantino summarizes Pratt's view stating that Pratt 

surmised that "the original divine entity was not God the Father," as Joseph Smith had insinuated near the end of his life, but rather "the Great First Cause itself" comprised of "conscious, intelligent, self-moving particles, called the Holy Spirit." ... Pratt concluded that "there is but one God, and he is in all worlds, and throughout all space, wherever the same identical light or truth is found." Therefore, "we worship that Holy Spirit or intelligence." In other words, they were worshiping the "attributes that constitutes divinity."

This view of the one God is discussed in this LDS forum. This idea is actually found in the Second and Fifth Lecture on Faith, where one reads that the Mind of the Supreme Deity, as an omnipresent Spirit, is in both the personages of the Father and Son, or in other words the Father and Son are constituted or organized by the Divine Mind and its Spirit Substance. 

Passantino goes on to say that President Young wanted Pratt formally brought before the Church to have his ideas declared false doctrine. Pratt tried to calm him down by basically apologizing for his teachings but Young continued to try and get his writings completely destroyed. Passantino then writes: "This public spat over the issue of the nature of the Holy [Spirit] became all the more interesting when Pratt inserted a section in the Doctrine and Covenants that expounded on the nature of the Godhead." He goes on in page 40 to recite the history of D&C 130:22, which came about after Orson Hyde spoke of the "Father and Son dwelling in our hearts" and Smith offering to correct Hyde's theology by saying that "the Father and Son dwelling in a man's heart is an old Sectarian notion and is not correct." Smith went on further to explain that the Father and Son having physical tangible bodies of flesh, this made it so that they could not dwell in one's heart. Smith went on to say that "a person cannot have the personage of the Holy Ghost in his heart, he may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, it may descend upon him but not tarry with him." I personally believe that here Smith likely meant to convey the idea that the Holy Ghost was a personage in the Godhead, the 3rd member, but the Holy Spirit (not the Holy Ghost) mentioned in the then canonized scripture of the fifth Lecture on Faith, is a diffuse substance. So that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent per Lecture 2 and 5, but the Holy Ghost was a personage as the third member of the Godhead. I think this is the most logical conclusion, given Smith's statements in the 1840s on the Holy Ghost and his re-canonizing the Lectures on Faith in 1844.

Passantino goes on to point out that the original wording by Smith's scribes on the Holy Ghost above was edited to instead say that basically the Holy Ghost can dwell in us. Passantino then says that Pratt in turn seems to have used this updated wording to continue his speculation on the Godhead, writing "Not only did the cannonization of this section [130] serve Pratt's theological priorities, but it also changed the very nature of the Doctrine and Covenants." In other words, the rewording added credence to Pratt's Godhead. 

 Something Passantino does not cover is that Pratt's footnotes in the 1891 D&C has footnotes to D&C 130:22 and 131:7-8, drawing the reader to the Lectures on Faith, which would have likely to a distinction in the LDS readers mind between the omnipresent Holy Spirit of the fifth Lecture on Faith, a difuse substance of spirit matter/atoms (per section 131: 7-8), as distinct from the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost (mentioned in D&C 130:22). 

On page 42, Passantino writes 

Section 130, along with sections 129 and 131, significantly changed the nature of the Doctrine and Covenants as a whole. Instead of it being a repository for revelations and the occasional letter tinged with revelatory language, it became a book that also contained teachings extracted from personal journal entries. The genre of the book was expanded to incorporate new authoritative teachings that may never have been meant by Joseph Smith to become so.

He goes on to basically say that in doing this, Pratt expanded what was considered scripture beyond what Smith himself had approved in his lifetime. Giving my own thoughts, I think that Pratt had contemplated why Joseph Smith would re-canonize the Lectures on Faith in 1844 after just teaching other ideas like God the Father has a body of flesh. Thus, being a thinking man, Pratt combined his knowledge of science with Joseph Smith's teaching that all spirit matter (or atoms) are spirit atoms or spirit matter, by formulating that doctrine that the Supreme Governing Power of Lecture 2, that constitutes (composes) the bodies or personages of the Father and Son, is likely a diffused substance of fluid omnipresent spirit-atoms acting as a Divine "Mind" (as Lecture 5 puts it). In other words, the canonization of section 130 - 131 and the footnotes added to these sections in the 1891 edition,  linking Smith's journal entries to the doctrine of the Lectures on Faith, presented Pratt's Godhead as authoritative doctrine and now bound in Scripture. Since Brigham Young was not a student of scripture I don't think he realized what Pratt was actually doing. When Young died in 1877, Pratt further canonized his Godhead theology by providing footnotes to D&C 130:22 and 131:7-8, that directed the reader to his pamphlet on the Godhead and the Lectures on Faith: that described a single Supreme Governing Power, the divine Mind, described as a fluid substance that constituted (forms) the personages of the Father and Son. So in my view, Orson Pratt had basically outsmarted Brigham Young by making it so his own Godhead theology was actually canonized in Scripture along with footnotes teaching his doctrine and he and added safety rails to block future autocratic tendencies with D&C 121: 34 - 43.

This would mean that the 1891 D&C as canonized scripture, could be argued to basically contain Pratt's scientific Godhead theology, along with the original canonization of the Lectures on Faith as official Church doctrine. So that to have an 1891 edition or a print out from online digital versions, is to essentially have LDS scripture containing Pratt's pro-science, physicalist spirituality or rational theology.

Passantino goes on to say that Pratt nevertheless sustained Brigham Young's title as President. He goes on to point out that it was after the death of Joseph Smith and the early Mormons feeling lost and confused, that it was Young's confidence in declaring it was "the word and will of the Lord" that they become the new Israel and him the new Moses, and cross the planes to Utah, which gave the Church needed cohesion and confidence to make the trek. In fact many Mormons we're happy to hear that the prophetic voice of God had returned. He concludes the section by pointing out that Pratt respected Young's sacrifices and loyalty to Joseph Smith and Pratt added a revelation from Brigham into the new edition of the D&C to honor his devotion and solidify his prophetic mantle and the doctrine of continuous revelation.

Excerpts from "Great First Cause" by Orson Pratt: The Philosophy of Self-Moving Powers as Intelligent Atoms & The Holy Spirit as the Governing Mind and Ultimate Self-Moving Intelligent Substance that forms all Forms and Personages

 Excerpts from Great First Cause, or the Self-Moving Forces of the Universe by Orson Pratt [This was published as a pamphlet, and was often included in early editions of Orson Pratt’s Works.] (Liverpool: R. James, Printer, 1851). 

Words in brackets are my own:

• Present existence proves the eternal existence of something. ...

• Creation from nothing [is] a vague conjecture

• Matter moves itself according to laws 

• Matter could not act without intelligence - Unintelligent matter could not obey a law 

• Intelligence [is] not the result but the cause of organization - Intelligent capacity's must be eternal 

• Atoms evidently had an origin ...  Atoms manufactured out of pre-existent substance.

• The probability that the present laws of the universe had an origin

• Intelligent materials acquire knowledge by experience - Cohesion and motion among the first efforts of intelligent matter

• Laws prescribed in proportion to the intelligence of materials

• Formation of atoms - All substances originated from one simple, elementary, self-moving, and eternal substance

• All organizations and all persons exhibit design ... the Deity-His person may have had a beginning, but his substance must be eternal -- A self moving Substance is the Great First Cause and Governor of all things. [Compare LDS Lectures on Faith #2 and #5. For example Lecture 2:2 states, "God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient"].

1. ... there must be an endless duration and a boundless space. ... Endless space and duration cannot be created nor annihilated by any being, but their continuance has been and must be eternal. These truths do not admit of being proved, for that which has no beginning cannot be preceded by a cause, and where no cause exists, there cannot possibly be any foundation for reasoning. There can be no reason why space and duration are as they are, and yet we perceive a necessity for them to be as they are. [note that similar to Pratt, the physicist Stephen Hawking argued that everything is basically energy and boundless space]

3. - Admitting the contingent truth, that something now exists in space, as nothing cannot produce something, therefore, it follows, as a necessary truth, that something must have always existed in space. Each part of this eternal something must occupy a finite space, having length, breadth, thickness, and figure. To occupy space, it must be solid, but solidity is only another name for matter; therefore, this eternal something must be matter. That which has no extension, nor parts, nor relation to space and duration, is called immateriality, which is the negative of all existence, or merely another name for nothing. (For further information upon this subject, see my treatise on the ABSURDITIES OF IMMATERIALISM.) ...

4. ... No man has ever perceived any one substance created from nothing by another. In all the varied operations of nature, we perceive no creations nor annihilations: we only perceive changes wrought upon that which already exists. Therefore, no man can know from experience, that the creation of something from nothing is a truth. ... Now there is nothing in the particular truths of nature which indicates the creation of any of her substances from nothing; hence, no such event can be established or inferred from induction. Therefore, creation from nothing is not a truth derived from reason.

5- As there is no evidence whatever in favour of the creation of any substance, we are justified in believing that the elements of every substance existed eternally. ... We can trace back the history of the earth for about six thousand years, or to the period of its formation. During this time countless millions of organizations, both vegetable and animal, have been constantly taking place. But in every case which has come under observation, the beings, organized, have been made out of pre-existing elements. In the mineral kingdom, a vast variety of new compounds have been formed, but in every instance that has come under the inspection of man, these compounds have been made from some-thing, and not from nothing.

All the miracles since the creation, that have been wrought by the power of God, have been Operations upon materials already existing. God has not, since the history of man, created any new elements, and exhibited them as a testimony that such an event is possible. When our Lord made wine at the wedding feast, it was not necessary to create it from nothing: he required the vessels first to be filled with water, after which he created or made the wine, which he could easily do by miraculously combining other ingredients or elements that already existed in great abundance. When he fed the multitudes with bread and fish, it was not necessary to make these compounds from nothing; when every element which enters into their constitution, existed plentifully all around him. ... Is it any more difficult to create an earth, Out of pre-existing elements, than it is to create various compounds, vegetables, and animals out of these elements? ...

... By the aid of light we only see the past, and not the present. Light does not inform us whether the most distant luminous bodies which can be seen are now in existence or not. Light enables us to see them exist thousands of ages ago, but it gives us no indications that they have existed as luminous bodies since that period. If the light of all worlds were created only six thousand years ago, then it would be impossible to see any of them over thirty-seven thousand billions of miles distant; for light could not travel over that distance in six thousand years ... Again, if the light of all worlds had been created at the same time, namely, six thousand years ago, several hundred new stars must have appeared every night since the invention of the telescope ... Whether our earth was created out of the ruins of some more ancient world, or whether it was formed out of elements which had never before been organized, is a mystery which the divine oracles do not reveal. But from geological inquiries it is highly probable that the elements of our globe have undergone a series of organizations and disorganizations, during countless ages that are past, compared with which the age of our present world forms but a link in the endless chain. Analogy indicates that worlds may be organized out of pre-existing elements as well as plants and animals. Analogy also indicates that the substance of all worlds may be eternal as well as the substance of which the Deity consists.

... 6.-The true definition of Matter is, that which Occupies space, and which cannot be made to occupy a greater or less amount of space. We cannot possibly conceive of the existence of God, or spirit, or any other kind of matter without conceiving such existence to be in space. ... 

... The atomic theory requires a cohesive force to bind together the parts of the atoms, hence, the conception of atoms, without force, is impossible, ... If space can be geometrically demonstrated to be infinitely divisible, matter which occupies space, ifit have no cohesive force, must be infinitely divisible, as may also be geometrically demonstrated. The parts of these particles, however small, may exist in contact without the least cohesion, and the least imaginable force would separate these parts asunder with the same ease that the same force would move either of them from a state of rest to a state of motion in free space. However far the division of a particle of matter be carried, the parts could never be reduced to nothing - they would always be larger than a point, and therefore would occupy space, and the sum of all the parts would occupy as much space as the whole particle previous to division.

7. - OF FORCE. - Such a thing as a uniform motion in right lines, or a state of absolute rest, is unknown in the universe: all matter is constantly exhibiting a change of state, therefore, all matter must be under the influence of a Force. Our minds are so constituted that we cannot conceive of Force existing separate and abstract from substance. All Forces must be the Forces of something, and that something as it occupies space, must be matter. As Forces now exist, and as inert matter cannot originate Force, therefore some Force must have been eternal. All other Forces must be the effect of this eternal Force, or they must also have existed eternally. ... When I speak of the term Forces, I do not mean those secondary causes which, by many, are frequently called forces; but I mean those original qualities of matter by which it changes its own state or condition. ... Secondary causes are not Forces, but effects. Effects are originated either directly or indirectly by Forces; but Forces can, in no case, be effects, unless they were created. The creation of Forces cannot be established by reason, experience, nor divine revelation: it is a wild, vague speculation, without the least foundation. All classes admit that there must be a Force that has eternally existed ...

8.-OF THE ACTION OF FORCES. -As Forces are the qualities of substances, and exist only in connexion with matter, when they act, they must act where they exist. ... We have already shown that matter without force would be infinitely divisible: each of these infinitely small parts possesses the quality of Force by which it can move itself or cause itself to press against other parts with which it may be in contact. Millions of these parts may press themselves together, and form an atom of substance of any shape or figure, and of any degree of hardness such as shall be the best adapted to its future purposes and designs. The Force that holds together the parts of an atom is not an attractive Force, but it is the force of pressure: each part presses itself towards every other part. Attraction would require each part to be entirely passive, having no power whatever over itself and yet possessing the extraordinary and impossible power of pulling every part towards itself. ...

9. - OF SELF-MOVING MATTER. - We are aware that the various phenomena of the universe are referred by philosophers to the operations of inert and unintelligent matter: they have supposed inertia to be a property of all matter, and, therefore, they suppose all matter incapable of changing its state whether of rest or motion. If it be granted that matter is inert or inactive, it must necessarily follow, that inert matter at rest could never put itself in motion, and that inert matter in motion could never accelerate nor retard that motion, nor change its direction. But all matter with which we are acquainted appears to be highly active; every particle has a tendency to approach towards every other particle. ...

[Note that the self-moving theory of Pratt below is similar to Nietzsche's will to power theory which was at odds with Darwin's theory of the will to survive]

10. ...  One thing is certain, if there is any inert matter in the universe, it has not yet been discovered to be such by its inactivity. If its existence be assumed, it must exist in union with active matter, which forces it to act according to fixed laws; ... 

... All the materials of the universe with which we are acquainted exhibit actions which in all cases are produced by self-moving forces, for no other forces do or can exist. 

II.– Those particles of this self-moving substance which constitute the worlds, and which are generally known under the name of ponderable substances, do not act at random, but act systematically and intelligently ...

... All the phenomena of universal gravitation can be far more simply explained by this law of self-moving particles, than by assuming the absurd hypothesis of attracting particles. Even though attraction were possible, (which we by no means admit) yet, it would be infinitely more simple for a particle to move itself than it would be to move everything but itself It has generally been supposed that there is something absurd in the idea of a substance moving itself but how much more absurd would be the idea of a substance so entirely inert that it could not move itself but yet able to move a universe of substance towards itself; but how can a substance which cannot move itself move other substances which exist at a distance? Yet this great absurdity is embraced in the attracting hypothesis. Every person, with the least reflection, will admit that a substance can more easily move itself than it can move anything else. The difference between the Self-moving Theory and the Attracting Hypothesis is to be found, not in the resulting phenomena, for they are and must be the same, but in the causes which produce these phenomena. The causes assumed to explain the phenomena are diametrically opposite in their nature, as may be more fully understood by the following contrast:

The attracting hypothesis assumes that a helpless, passive, inert, particle, has the power of acting in every place where it is not present, but has no power of acting where it is present. The self-moving theory assumes that an active particle has the power to act where it is present, but no power to act in any place where it is not present. Again, the attracting hypothesis assumes that an inert particle has the power to move every substance in the universe towards itself but has no power to move itself in any direction. While the self-moving theory assumes that an active substance has the power to move itself towards other substances, but has no power to move any external substance towards itself. ... The one makes it impossible for particles to change their own state, whether of rest or motion; the other gives power to particles to change their state of rest or motion according to definite laws. ...

12. - All theologists who adopt the attracting hypothesis, require a Great First Cause, who not only gives laws to blind, unconscious, unintelligent matter, but also forces it to act according to those laws. All theologists who shall adopt the self-moving theory will require the Great First Cause itself to consist of conscious, intelligent, self-moving particles, called the Holy Spirit [see the 5th Lecture on Faith], which prescribe laws for their own action, as well as laws for the action of all other intelligent materials. An unintelligent particle is incapable of understanding and obeying a law, while an intelligent particle is capable of both understanding and obedience. It would be entirely useless for an intelligent cause to give laws to unintelligent matter, for such matter could never become conscious of such laws, and therefore would be totally incapable of obedience.

... The amount of intelligent matter in space must be inconceivably great; it exists in vast quantities in all worlds, regulating and controlling every department of nature according to fixed laws. It is evident that each particle must have not only perceived the utility of such laws, but must have mutually consented to obey them in the most strict and invariable manner. All these self-moving materials must be possessed of a high degree of intelligence, in order to obey with such perfect and undeviating exactness the innumerable laws which obtain in the universe. There is no disobedience on the part of the materials. 

... The philosophy of modern times, however, does not admit that material particles possess intelligence or knowledge: it deprives matter of all understanding and will, making it obey certain laws unconsciously and blindly, not perceiving its own acts nor their results, neither its own existence. ... 

13. ... we conceive the sublime and glorious personage of the Deity himself [see Lecture 5, where the Father is a personage of spirit, glory and power] to consist of a certain number of the most superior and most intelligent material particles of the universe [see D&C 130-131, Abraham 3], existing in a state of union, which union, if not eternal, must have been the result of the anterior and eternal powers of each individual particle. ...

... the amount of matter possessing capacities for intelligence in the universe, be it great or small, is constant, and can never be increased or diminished in the least degree. ... the moment we admit the omnipresence of this substance [the First Cause/First God], irresistibly compelled to also admit that it exists in inexhaustible quantities; not that it absolutely fills all space, for then, there would be no room for any other substance, neither room for motion. Therefore, the substance of which the deity consists, must not only exist in immense quantities, but its particles must be in a greater or less degree separate and detached from each other by intervening spaces, which is an essential condition necessary to the vast variety of motions which are constantly taking place among these parts. Now these particles of this omnipresent and eternal substance must each have size and shape. ...

... we are compelled, by the most irresistible evidence, to believe that the present [tiny] minuteness and endless similarity of parts, which so universally obtains in all self-moving substances, had an origin. Not that the substances had an origin, but only their present similar magnitudes and figures. And we are also compelled to admit that the power [see Lecture 2 and 5] which produced this present condition must have eternally existed in the substances prior to their assuming their present form. By this eternal self-existent power resident in the dissimilar atoms of substances, those atoms which were too large to be useful in the future economy of nature could divide and sub-divide themselves until their dimensions were of an appropriate size[again, compare LDS Lectures on Faith #2 and #5. For example Lecture 2:2 states, "God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, ...; who is omnipresent ..."].; while such [spirit-atoms] as were too small could unite themselves together until they attained a size requisite for their future usefulness. And thus originated that endless similarity - that apparent equality of size and figure - that exceeding minuteness [i.e. tinyness] which so universally characterizes all the atoms of the same kind of substance. ...

... So the present minuteness of all atoms of the same kind - the equality of their magnitudes - the exact similarity of their figures - and their most perfect resemblance in all respects, show, most unquestionably, that these characteristics are not eternal, but were "manufactured," not from nothing, but from an eternal pre-existing substance which (we have the highest degree of probability to believe) once existed in almost every possible variety of size and form, without likeness, or resemblance, or order, only as might have existed in some few instances by chance. ... Is there any absurdity involved in the idea of manufacturing small atoms out of large ones, as, for instance, small shot are manufactured out of large bullets? Can it be proved that the prior large atoms are necessarily indivisible? or that their parts are, by their own power, held so firmly together that they cannot, by the same power, separate themselves from each other? Is the union of the parts of each atom governed by powers that are uncontrollable by its own will? are these powers antecedent to the power of will? If then, the parts of atoms are not bound together by any powers that are antecedent to, or distinct from, the free will, or self-moving powers of the atoms themselves, it is evident that they can manufacture smaller atoms out of their own parts of such sizes and forms as shall be best suited to their future purposes and designs. And by the same free will or self-moving powers, those atoms which are too small for future uses can unite themselves together in sufficient numbers to accomplish any future object which they may have in view. To manufacture certain definite sizes and forms of substance from nothing is utterly inconceivable! But to manufacture such sizes and forms from something is not only conceivable, but consistent with the whole analogy of nature.

14. ... [the] all-powerful atoms of this omnipresent substance [are] alike; for in whatever deportment of nature we recognize the vast and powerful operations of this widely diffused substance, we also recognize the most perfect "identity of deportment under similar circumstances." ... An immense and endless quantity of substance is a necessary and essential condition to its omnipresence. Also this immense substance must be divisible, separable, and moveable, as a necessary essential condition to the exercise of its powers. ... 

15. - As all substances and forces are eternal, the probability is that they have eternally been engaged in some kind of operation. That the laws by which these forces act have been the same in all past ages is very improbable. If there were any necessity for these laws to be what they are, that necessity would render them eternal, but as they are laws given to govern substances that act voluntarily under the influence of wisdom, knowledge, and will, they can be changed at any time. The present laws of the universe may have existed, with trifling variations, for millions of years; and there may have been an infinite series of laws, each continuing for ages, and yet each differing from all the rest. If ever there were a period when the wisdom and knowledge of the materials of the universe were more imperfect than what they are under the present law, they would be unqualified to act under this law, and therefore they would act under an inferior law, such as they could understand. If we assume that some of the materials of nature, have been eternally all- wise and all-intelligent, then they could have eternally acted according to the best laws, so ~r as their own substances were concerned; but if we assume that many of the materials, instead of possessing great wisdom and knowledge, only possessed the capacities for receiving intelligence, and had to be taught and instructed by experience, then the laws devised for their rule of action would be at first extremely simple, and as they advanced in experience these laws would be changed for those of a higher order, proportioned to their increased wisdom and knowledge; and as countless ages rolled along they would at length attain to all that flilness of wisdom and intelligence which characterizes all their present operation. But shall we stop here, and suppose all the materials of the universe have ascended to the highest scale of perfection? Shall we suppose that they have now come to a stopping place, beyond which they can never advance? No: there are other laws of action in which they must be schooled, and other spheres of endless ages shall open new glories, and new laws, and new modes of action, they will progress in the grand universal, and eternal scale of being.

With this view of the subject, it is not necessary to suppose that the different materials of nature have possessed the same intelligence from eternity that they now have. Their capacities for receiving intelligence must have been eternal, but the intelligence may have been imparted at any time when circumstances favored. One of the first and most simple things which material particles had to learn, as we may suppose, was simply to exercise the force of cohesion, so that their infinitely small parts might be bound together in union; but this would require in all probability ages of experience before each part of an atom would learn how to press itself towards every other part with an equal degree of intensity, so as to preserve the forces in equilibrium; unless such an equilibrium of forces were obtained the atom could not remain at rest. When- ever an atom should desire to move in any particular direction, as for instance, to the south, with any particular velocity, it could do so, by destroying the equilibrium of forces existing in those parts of the atom which were in the line of the desired motion ...

16. -After a substance had passed through ages of experience in acquiring a knowledge of cohesion and motion, it would be qualified to begin to exert these elementary forces systematically, according to prescribed laws. The next thing, perhaps, in the great school of experience would be for one portion to form itself into an immense number of atoms of the same size and form, and for another portion to form itself into a vast number of atoms of another size and form, and in this way all the elementary atoms of nature could be formed out of the same substance; their difference of their hardness, depending upon the intensity of the cohesion of their parts. Thus might the elements of spirit, light, heat, electricity, oxygen, hydrogen, mtrogen, and of all other substances, be formed originally from one substance. These various atoms uniting by their own self-moving powers, according to prescribed laws, would form all the various compounds of nature with all their various properties. For instance, a definite proportion of oxygen uniting with a definite proportion of hydrogen, heat, light, &c., would form a molecule of water; and several molecules of water united with a certain intensity of cohesion would form a liquid; with less heat the molecules would crystalize and form a solid; with a greater amount of heat they would exist in the form of vapour. After substance has learned by experience all operations, they would be qualified to act according to systematic laws, or those laws that are generally called chemical laws. ... 

... All substances have been already reduced to less than sixty kinds, which chemists term elementary, only because their imperfect experiments have not succeeded in decomposing them. Many bodies which, a few years ago, were considered elementary, have been resolved into simpler kinds; and we have no reason to suppose that we have as yet discovered even one elementary substance. If the process of decomposition were carried to its fullest extent, we should find, no doubt, that all the ponderable substances of nature, together with light, heat, and electricity, and even spirit itself, all originated from one elementary simple substance, possessing a living self-moving force, with intelligence sufficient to govern it in all its infinitude of combinations and operations, producing all the immense variety of phenomena constantly taking place throughout the wide domains of universal nature. ...

... That portion of this one simple elementary substance which possesses the most superior knowledge, prescribes laws for its own action, and for the action of all other portions of the same substance which possesses inferior intelligence. And thus there is a law given to all things according to their capacities, their wisdom, their knowledge, and their advancement in the grand school of the universe. To every law there are bounds and conditions set, and those materials that continue within their own sphere of action, and keep the law, are exalted to new spheres of action ...

17. - All the organizations of worlds, of minerals, of vegetables, of animals, of men, of angels, of spirits, and of the spiritual personages of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, must, if organized at all, have been the result of the self combinations and unions of the preexistent, intelligent, powerful, and eternal particles of substance. These eternal Forces and Powers are the Great First Causes of all things and events that have had a beginning. If the skillful arrangements and wise adaptations of the different parts of vegetables and animals to every other part indicate design, as that celebrated theologian Archdeacon Paley asserts, and if design, as he still further declares, implies a designer, and therefore, a beginning of those intricate arrangements and adaptations, then there must have been a designer or designers before any such arrangements and adaptations could exist. Paley also states, that the more perfect the being, the greater are the evidences of design; for instance, he considers that the complicated adjustments of each part to every other part, exhibited in the personage of man is a greater evidence of design than is manifested in any of the lower orders of being. If this be the case, then the spiritual personages of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, must exhibit more evidences of design in the wise adaptations and arrangements of the different portions of substance of which they consist, than any other persons in existence [note that the 5th Lecture on Faith explains that the personages of the Father and Son are constituted by, i.e., made of, the omnipresent Holy Spirit or Divine "Mind"] and to carry out Paley's argument, we are compelled to believe that these - the most superior of all other personages - must have had a beginning, for inasmuch as they indicate a design there must have been' an anterior designer - this designer must have been a self-moving intelligent substance capable of organizing itself into one or more most glorious personages. We are compelled to admit that the personage of God must be eternal, exhibiting no marks of design whatever, or else we are compelled to believe that the all-powerful, self-moving substance of which he consists organized itself. But in either case, whether his person be eternal or not, His substance, with all its infinite capacities of wisdom, knowledge, goodness, and power, must have been eternal. It is this substance which is the Great First Cause; it is this substance which governs and controls all organization by wise and judicious laws. Parts of this most glorious substance now exist in the form of personages; parts exist in an unorganized capacity, mingling more or less with all other things, forming a world here, and an animalcule yonder, governing a universe, and yet taking notice of the lowest orders of being, and imparting life and happiness to all. He is in all things and through all things, and the law by which all things are governed; and all things are not only by him and for him, but OF him. His majesty and power, His wisdom and greatness, His goodness and love, shine forth in every department of creation, with a glory that is ineffable, immortal, and eternal.