Joseph Smith's Reply to David Hume: A Study in the Advantages of Heresy

This is a copy of a paper I wrote around twenty-five years ago. Like my Environmental Theory essay I had intended it as a prolegomena for future studies, but life got in the way. I'm leaving the text as I wrote it except for linking to appropriate sources and minor formatting. Readers should be aware that some links are to different editions of the work I cited. Some of the information is probably outdated and there are some things I would change if I were rewriting it today. 

 

Most religions eventually develop a set of propositions a follower must believe as a member of the faith community. This is a natural development. However, when such orthodoxy becomes too strict, it becomes harder to respond to new challenges. Instead, what may happen is the religion will develop into a fundamentalism, becoming increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. Often, it becomes necessary to break free from orthodox thinking to respond to new challenges. The answers of such so-called heretics often have resounding implications for the wider world and provide compelling visions for their followers. 

Joseph Smith provides us such a case. Freed early in his ministry from orthodox considerations, he offered the world a theology that was, and is, often viewed with outrage by mainstream Christianity.ⁱ Embedded in his theology is an ingenious response to Scottish skeptic David Hume’s attack on the teleological argument for the existence of God. If one were to attempt to find proof of God’s existence in the Bible, they would search in vain. Some passages seem to try to prove God’s existence (e.g., Isa. 40:12-20), but closer examination shows the author’s intent is to display the Lord’s superiority over idols. The biblical writers simply took His existence for granted. Trying to prove it would have been a foreign idea to them. Some psalmists wrote, “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no god” (Ps. 10:4; 14:1; 53:1).ⁱⁱ However, these passages do not refer to philosophical atheism, but to those who deny God’s activity in the world.ⁱⁱⁱ

Eventually, philosophers developed arguments that supposedly proved God’s existence from reason. Christian theologians often borrowed these arguments to show the compatibility between faith and reason. They may have also believed certain biblical passages suggested these arguments. Two of these arguments are in part based on creation, and consequently they may be confused. Since Joseph Smith’s theology affects both arguments, briefly reviewing both will be necessary.

The main idea of the cosmological argument is that God must exist because the universe must have had a beginning. God is the only adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Naturally, the cause of the universe must itself be distinct from the universe. The common form of the argument attempts to show that rational persons must inevitably trace a sequence of events to an ultimate source, or “first cause.” This first cause is what we call God.^iv Philosophers have perpetuated different ways of expressing this argument. St. Thomas Aquinas gave three forms of the argument in his Summa Theologica.^v

For mainstream Christians, the cosmological argument is especially compelling, as they view God in absolutist terms. God must be the reason everything exists. Likewise, God is utterly independent of the created universe. To say that there exist things to explain God detracts from His station as deity.^vi

The cosmological argument seems to have some support in the Bible, especially if we interpret Genesis 1:1 to mean the absolute beginning of space, time, and matter. However, biblical scholars generally agree that the Hebrew original does not support this idea.^vii In English, many of them would combine the first two verses of Genesis and render them similarly to the New Revised Standard Version:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The teleological argument attempts to show that the universe exhibits signs of being designed by an intelligent creator. Therefore, people also call the teleological argument the argument from design.^viii Christian philosophers likely took some of their inspiration from the Bible in using this argument.

Assertions that “everything has been created for its own purpose” (Sir. 39:21)^ix abound in the Bible. Sirach goes on to list the purpose of certain objects as rewarding the righteous or punishing the wicked (Sir. 39:25-31). Other biblical writers list more practical purposes for created objects. God created the sun and the moon “to separate the day from the night, … [to] be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and … to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:14-15). Similarly, a psalmist displays God’s wisdom by showing how he created several things to give food and shelter for various animals and people (Ps. 104:14-20). Nature declares “the glory of God” in a silent language (Ps. 19:1-3), which leaves humanity no excuse for their behavior before God (Rom. 1:19-20).

David Hume made a devastating attack on this argument in his last work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume was born on 26 April 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland. He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1723. By 1751, he had already established worldwide recognition based on several books he published. It was during this year that he originally wrote Dialogues. He worked on revising the manuscript during his retirement in Edinburgh. Hume died in 1776. Dialogues was published posthumously in 1779.^x

Hume believed we cannot deduce the effect of an event without having previously experienced a similar event. He thought no one could ever establish causal links through abstract reasoning alone. Though a skeptic, he did not consider himself an atheist. Hume disagreed with both Christians and deists, who held that religion is man’s natural response to the proof of God’s existence, as seen in nature. He also believed “everything is surely governed by steady, inviolable laws.”^xi

Dialogues presents Hume’s arguments in a fictional exchange between characters named Cleanthes, Philo, and Demla. Cleanthes argued in favor of the teleological argument:

Look around the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines…. All these various machines … are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance….^xii

The similarities of the universe to a machine lead us to infer that the cause of the machine is an intelligence similar to human minds. This proves the existence of God and says something of his similarity to human nature. Theists do not need to prove the similarities between the universe and a work of art because it is self-evident. “The same matter, a like form.” “Whatever cavils may be urged, an orderly world … will still be received as an incontestable proof of design and intention.”^xiii

Demla and Philo both had objections, but Philo most closely represents Hume’s position.^xiv Though Hume had other objections to the teleological argument, this essay will concentrate on objections that go to the heart of orthodox thought.

Hume believed the strength of an argument by analogy lay in the similarity between the objects compared. If similar effects imply similar causes, then we should be prepared to accept the consequences. An object such as a watch or a house would tell us that there is an intelligent designer behind it, but what else would it tell us?^xv

Could we say that the designer has infinite power and knowledge? Of course not. We need only suppose that cause is proportional to effect. The universe, being finite, does not need an infinite designer.^xvi

Could we assume that the designer was perfect? If we examined most devices more closely, we would likely find many imperfections. The imperfections may be due to the quality of the material, the ability of the designer, or other limitations. This holds true with nature, as well. Therefore, God must also have limits.^xvii

Could we say that the person who designed a given device also built it? That is possible. However, people most often use blueprints or patterns provided by others when constructing any device. Any machine is likely the result of trial and error. Just as likely, it is based on a design that improved through the ages. All that is necessary to make any machine are blueprints and the parts. Perhaps God worked off a model himself. Regardless, this also suggests God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.^xviii

Perhaps God simply used his staff to create the universe. Many people have built houses and ships working together, each of whom had a hand in the process. We have no reason to believe God worked alone, either. Human objects are often the result of different people working together on a given project.^xix

Could we say the designer was a self-existent being – someone who has no antecedents? The natural assumption would be that he had parents, grandparents, and other ancestors, perhaps as far back as eternity. The same conclusion would therefore apply to God, as well. Also, it would be conceivable that God (or the gods) also reproduces.^xx

Could we say that the designer was a being of pure spirit completely independent of the physical world? That would hardly be conceivable. By way of analogy, God would have to have some sort of body. As Philo asked, “Why not become a perfect anthropomorphite?”^xxi

Finally, do we have any assurance that this universe is not “only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance?” For that matter, God could be some decrepit old deity whose mind is degenerating.^xxii

Cleanthes rejects the notion that the universe is eternal.^xxiii However, he is unable to answer Philo’s questions about the absolute beginnings of the world:

How therefore shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that being … into which you trace the material? Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop and go no further; why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum? And after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression?^xxiv

In summary, Hume chastised those who would use an analogy to prove God’s existence without taking the analogy to its natural conclusions. The reason they are unwilling to follow through with the implications is because they would be forced to make conclusions that no theist is willing to make. Cleanthes would disavow all of Philo’s inferences, accepting them only as far as he was “obliged, at every turn, to have recourse to [the hypotheses of design].”^xxv

However, the problem is not that these theologians are unwilling to tease out the implications. The real problem is that more than a thousand years of orthodox thought has constrained them. Simply put, they cannot make those conclusions. Only a theologian free from the bonds of orthodox thought could answer Hume adequately.

Joseph Smith was such a person. Smith’s prophetic career began with what Latter-day Saints commonly call the First Vision. According to the canonical account, religious revivals in his area prompted Smith to think more deeply about religious matters. Subsequent fighting between competing churches vying for members agitated him (JS-H 5-10). Confused by these competing claims, Smith eventually decided to settle the matter by prayer, directly asking God which church he should join (JS-H 13-14).

God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Smith and answered his prayer (JS-H 17). They told him “must join none of them, for they were all wrong … and … all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (JS-H 18-19). Though Smith’s more radical theological innovations would come later, God’s reply established the foundation for ignoring orthodox thought. The publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 marks the beginning of Smith’s thoughts on the nature of God.^xxvi

The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, assumes the existence of God. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon does give us a bona fide atheist in the character of Korihor (Alma 30:36-38). In a debate with the current leader of the Church, named Alma, Korihor challenges him to provide a sign proving God’s existence (Alma 30:43). In response, Alma replies, “All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a creator” (Alma 30:44). In this respect, Hullinger was not far off the mark when he said Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in part to prove the existence of God.^xxvii Since the Book of Mormon uses the teleological argument, it has been the primary appeal of Latter-day Saints in establishing God’s existence. As another Book of Mormon prophet stated, “if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation” (2 Ne. 11:7). Smith later appealed to astronomy and botany as signs of God’s decrees.^xxviii An official Church publication notes that “the system of nature is the manifestation of an order that argues a directing intelligence.”^xxix

Whether Smith had direct contact with Hume’s work or not, he was more willing to work out the implications of the teleological argument. Learning about the nature of God was one of his preoccupations. In one of his final sermons, he said, “The first principle of truth … is to know for a certainty the character of God, and that we may converse with Him the same as one man with another.”^xxx

The key point of Smith’s theology was expressed in the same sermon. According to Smith, God was “once a man like one of us and … dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us.”^xxxi According to a revelation given to Smith, God still resides in time and space, on another planet (D&C 130:7). He identified the name of the star as Kolob (Abr. 3:2-3). Smith, in effect, flatly denies we need to have an ultimate first cause. We can go on endlessly if we please, but we need only be concerned with what we are doing right now.

Not long afterward, Smith added that God the Father himself had a father, a grandfather, and so on eternally. Every person that ever existed always had some antecedent, except in their original form as intelligences.^xxxii

Moreover, Smith did become “a perfect anthropomorphite.”^xxxiii In a series of instructions later canonized by the Church, Smith told his listeners “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man’s; the Son also.” Only the Holy Ghost “is a personage of spirit” – this was necessary to carry out His functions (D&C 130:22).^xxxiv

In contrast to Christian orthodoxy, God has restrictions in Mormon theology. For example, God organized the world using already existent material and following laws he must obey.^xxxv Smith rejected the Christian doctrine of creation from nothing. “The elements are eternal,” God told Smith (D&C 93:33). Talmage stated the idea succinctly: “from nothing, nothing can be derived.”^xxxvi

By elements, Smith meant not only matter. In a revelation God told him “intelligence … was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). Smith is unclear whether spirit and intelligence are the same. What is clear is he thought “the mind of man – the intelligent part – is as immortal as, and is coequal with, God himself.”^xxxvii

At some point, God organized “the intelligences,” selecting “many of the noble and great ones” to be his “rulers” (Abr. 3:22-23). The rulers, called “Gods,” accompanied the Lord to our corner of space and helped Him create the world (Abr. 4:1). Any imperfections can be explained by the eternal nature of space/time and matter/energy. However, “God did all that could be done as the immanent, eternally active, and creating, and causing power in the universe under the limitations of any other eternal existences, … including consideration of the intractableness of the material with which the Creator had to work.”^xxxviii

It would also seem to follow that God had patterns available to him when creating our world. He already had experience with a world like ours, and could call upon the assistance of those who had gone before Him. These factors would help check any blatant mistakes. Additionally, “there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my [God’s] power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man” (Moses 1:35).

Having granted most of Hume’s points, one might ask whether such a view of God is viable. The thought of humans and deity being too closely alike “scandalizes” Hume. He preferred God to be utterly unfathomable.^xxxix Would the finite God Smith presents be worthy of worship?

Hume himself admits to advantages inherent in an anthropomorphic deity. For example, he notes that in common experience, no one has ever observed a disembodied intelligence. Mormon theologian B. H. Roberts believed that Smith’s theology solved the problem of evil.^xl Blake T. Ostler shows how a finite God is still worthy of worship. David Paulsen recently established that a material God resolved other vexing problems in Christian thought.^xli

Smith would have felt that the answer was self-evident. He would not have taught such a god otherwise. However, we should remember that he was a prophet, not a philosopher. Like the biblical authors, his function was to reveal God, not to reason about him.

Likely, the defenses mentioned above would seem alien to him. Smith might justify his ideas with the Bible, but this was more of a concession to those who “would cry treason” otherwise.^xlii Like all prophets, Smith was an authority unto himself – justified only by God’s revelation. If pressed into answering the question, Smith may have turned to the purpose of creation. According to Smith, God’s purpose is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

For Smith, this meant much more than an idyllic existence in Heaven singing praises to God. As mere intelligences, human beings are incomplete. “All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge…. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest who were less in intelligence could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him….”^xliii One purpose of creation was to have a place to test whether men and women would do everything required of them by God (Abr. 3:24-25).

Part of the necessary knowledge is experience with good and evil. According to the Book of Mormon, “there must be an opposition in all things.” The Book of Mormon connects this idea to the very existence of God. Opposition also serves God’s “eternal purposes in the end of man.” Without it, existence would have no purpose (2 Ne. 2:11-15).

Picking up on the thought of Paul (e.g., Rom. 8:17), Smith preached that to be “heirs of God” and “joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” means “to inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers and exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power and arrive at the station of a God the same as those who have gone before.”^xliv When this happens, “then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them” (D&C 132:20).^xlv

Joseph Smith’s answer to David Hume was bold and outrageous. It also has important consequences in the broader world of philosophy and theology. Yet Smith’s theology was also a stepping stone to a greater vision of man’s possibilities. This vision simply would not have been possible if Smith were forced to stay within the box of orthodox thinking.

This essay is meant as a test case in exploring how heretics solve problems with which orthodox thinkers are less able to deal. We have likely ignored other heretics though their ideas are well worth exploring. Not only do they deserve better, so does the world.

Notes

i For the purposes of this essay, “mainstream Christianity” refers to the bodies of Christians normally divided into Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant branches. I avoid the term “orthodox Christianity” to prevent confusion with the Orthodox Churches. When I refer to “orthodox” or “mainstream” thought in this essay, I am referring to beliefs about God held in common between these strands of the Christian tradition.

ii All quotations of the Bible in this essay are from the New Revised Standard Version.

iii Arnold B. Rhodes, Psalms, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960), 89.

iv Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 75-84.

v Part 1, Question 1, Article 3.

vi Blake T. Ostler, “The Concept of a Finite God as an Adequate Object of Worship,” in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 77-78.

vii E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible, vol. 1 (Garden City:, NJ: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 12.

viii Davies, 84, 93.

ix Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus, is one of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. It is considered canonical by Catholics and the Orthodox, but listed with the Apocrypha in Protestant bibles. For a brief discussion, see Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 2^nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 3. A chart is available in Anderson, 4-5.

x Martin Bell, Introduction, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by David Hume (London: Penguin Press, 1990), 1-5.

xi David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Martin Bell (London: Penguin Books, 1990), 84 (30); Bell, 5-7, 13.

xii Hume, 53.

xiii Hume, 53, 63-66.

xiv Bell, 16.

xv Hume, 75.

xvi Hume, 76.

xvii Hume, 76-77.

xviii Hume, 77.

xix Hume, 77.

xx Hume, 78-79.

xxi Hume, 78.

xxii Hume, 79.

xxiii Hume, 82.

xxiv Hume, 72.

xxv Hume, 57, 79.

xxvi On the development of Smith’s doctrine during his lifetime, see Thomas G. Alexander “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine,” Sunstone, June 1999, 15-19. Different accounts of the First Vision are extent and differ in detail. However, all the accounts agree that God told Smith all the churches in existence were wrong. Most Mormons believe Smith translated the works of the individual Book of Mormon authors. Others attribute authorship directly to Smith. Neither view affects the thesis of this essay.

xxvii Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism, Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1980), 5. However, Hullinger’s study was mainly directed at deism, mentioned briefly above. Hullinger admits that deists believed in God. The real controversy was between those who argued for “revealed religion” and those who argued for “natural religion.” See Hullinger, 20. Hullinger also concentrates mainly on the Book of Mormon, whereas this study surveys Smith’s theology as it developed in his ministry. [Hullinger’s revised edition of this work is titled Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism.]

xxviii The Essential Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 155.

xxix James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 12^th ed. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1957), 34.

xxx Smith, 235.

xxxi Smith, 235.

xxxii Smith, 253.

xxxiii Hume, 79.

xxxiv Many passages in the Bible likely influenced Smith, even discounting the obvious “God created humankind in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). For example, the Lord appeared to Abraham, accepting and eating a meal prepared by him (Gen. 18). Jacob wrestled with a “man” whom he identified as God (Gen. 32:24-30). The elders of Israel dined with God not long after leaving Egypt (Ex. 24:9-11). Other references are possible.

xxxv Smith studied Hebrew under Joshua Seixas in Kirtland, Ohio. He undoubtedly understood the Hebrew word translated “created” in Genesis 1:1 means “to organize,” rather than to create from nothing. On Smith’s Hebrew studies, see Kevin L. Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30, no. 4 (1997): 109-119. See also the discussion on this verse above.

xxxvi Kent E. Robson, “Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience in Mormon Theology,” in Bergera, 69-70; Talmage, 34.

xxxvii Smith, 239.

xxxviii B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, An Elementary Treatise on Theology: The Masterwork of B. H. Roberts, ed. Stan Larson (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 381.

xxxix Hume, 57.

xl Briefly stated, the problem of evil is the dilemma posed by the existence of evil. The argument states if God can prevent evil, but did not, then He is not morally good. On the other hand, if He cannot prevent evil, though morally good, then God is powerless.

xli Hume, 81; B. H. Roberts, 374-383; Ostler 77-82; David Paulsen, “Must God Be Incorporeal?” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 76-87.

xlii Smith, 236.

xliii Smith, 240.

xliv Smith, 236.

xlv In 3 Ne. 28:10, Jesus tells his audience “ye shall be even as I am, and I am as the Father….” This may be the initial seed of Smith’s thought on people becoming gods. The first explicit mention of this possibility does not come until later (D&C 76:58). Alexander believes that the Church did not fully realize the implications of these passages until an even later time. See Alexander, 18.

Reviving the Anointed Quorum: An Idea

In Joseph Smith on Mormon Women and the Priesthood, Fiona Givens argues that, contra some assertions, that Joseph Smith did not necessarily envision granting women the priesthood. Instead, the Relief Society was intended to be an autonomous organization within the Church, parallel to the Priesthood and collaborators in the administration of the Church. As the Relief Society was meant to be an effectual (if not actual) priesthood, Givens implies that restoring the Relief Society to its autonomous position would resolve the problems that lead some women to call for ordination in the Priesthood.

I disagree with that implication. Joseph and Emma's historical vision boils down to a separate but equal status for the Relief Society. But human history has shown over and over again that "separate but equal" is anything but equal. The reason why “separate but equal” schemes don't work is because there is always an unequal distribution of power between the parties being kept separate, and it always works against the party who is declared equal. For example, during the Jim Crow era, the problem wasn't just that the white majority didn't ensure the facilities being kept separate were maintained equally. Jim Crow laws worked because the white majority devised various workarounds to the 15th Amendment that effectively deprived African Americans the power to remedy the inequities.

We can see this dynamic working in the history of the Relief Society. During the preliminary stages of the Relief Society's organization, Joseph said his intent was to “organize the women under the priesthood after a pattern of the priesthood” (emphasis added). As Givens noted, Joseph instructed the Relief Society that “If the sisters needed the prophet's instruction," they were to "ask him [and] he will give it." And notably, the Priesthood shut down the Relief Society, possibly because of the conflict between Joseph and Emma Smith over polygamy.¹

Therefore, restoring the Relief Society would not give women the role of full collaborators in the Church. The Relief Society never gave women the status of full collaborators in Church affairs to begin with. Being full collaborators in Church affairs requires having power, and the Relief Society was subject to the Priesthood, even in its original vision. The Priesthood retained the prerogatives of power while giving the Relief Society the illusion of equality. So long as the Priesthood retains the power, the Relief Society can never be truly autonomous, nor can women ever be equal collaborators in Church administration. The power differential between the Priesthood and the Relief Society must be addressed for this to happen.

If a separate but equal status for the Relief Society doesn't address the power differential between it and the Priesthood, what could? I have an idea. I don't pretend to have fully fleshed out the idea and all its implications, and therefore wouldn't call it a proposal. But if the basic idea is sound, I'm sure others could take it up and work out the details.

My idea is to revive the Anointed Quorum. The original Anointed Quorum existed for the purpose of ensuring the general membership received their temple ordinances. Once that purpose was accomplished, the Quorum was disbanded. For our purposes, the most significant point that should be noted is that the Anointed Quorum was composed of both men and women. Though intended for a specific purpose, the Anointed Quorum was the only governing body in LDS Church history where women were even theoretically made full collaborators with men.

This time, the Anointed Quorum would be vested with the authority to govern general Church affairs. It's membership would be composed of members appointed in equal numbers by and from the Priesthood and the Relief Society, subject to the law of common consent. The Priesthood and the Relief Society would be truly autonomous in the governance of its own affairs, subject only to the general policies set by the Anointed Quorum. The Anointed Quorum would have the power to proclaim official Church doctrine (subject to the law of common consent), administer Church finances, appoint Church courts, and otherwise set policy and procedure governing Church administration.

Women will never be full collaborators in Church governance unless and until the power differential between the all-male Priesthood and the female membership is resolved. The first and most obvious way to accomplish this is to extend ordination to women. Another alternative is to find some way to reorganize the Church's governing structure to ensure women have equal power with the Priesthood in administering Church affairs. Reviving the Anointed Quorum offers just such a possibility.

 

1. In another conversation, Don Bradley disputes the polygamy theory, noting the reasons the Relief Society stopped meeting in 1844 are not clear. It is not my intent to delve into a historical analysis about why the original Relief Society disbanded beyond noting it is unlikely it would have happened without the Priesthood exerting pressure on it.

Things Old

This is a copy of a talk I gave in church in October 1997. I'm now divorced and no longer active in the Church, but this talk still captures much of my belief.

I would like to start by reading Alma 32:26-27:

Now, as I said concerning faith--that it was not a perfect
knowledge--even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at
first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But
behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment
upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more
than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in
a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

I shall return to this passage in a little bit. It was my wife that
first got me interested in the Gospel. At the time, I was a fairly new
member of a local Baptist church, and with the zeal of a new convert, I was
sure that my decision for Christ had been the right one. When I found out
that Carrie and her boyfriend of the time were LDS, I decided that it would
be a good idea to learn more about the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs.
So I went to a local Christian bookstore and picked up a book on
Mormonism. It was, of course, an anti-Mormon work. I knew that I should not
take the inflammatory remarks too seriously, but what facts I could confirm,
I was able to, usually from Mormon sources, and on a few occasions,
confirmation came right out of Carrie's mouth. Hateful and mean as the
anti-Mormon works were, I apparently could come to no other conclusion than
the Church was not true.

If only I could leave it at that. But I could not. I soon found myself
trying to convert Carrie and my friend away from Mormonism, using the facts
that I had gathered, inviting her to confirm them for herself. On one
occasion that I remember, she did try to confirm or deny certain facts found
in the anti-Mormon works. She came back shaken; my facts were dead on. But
she did not give up her faith, either in Joseph Smith or the restored Gospel.
I actually wound up envying her faith and hating it for its emotional
simplicity.

But there were a few things that I liked very much about the Mormon
gospel. To begin with, I liked the idea of celestial marriage, wherein one's
family could be sealed for time and eternity. Likewise, I liked the idea of
the degrees of glory described in D&C 76, since it fit my conceptions of a
just God far better than the either heaven or hell theory of most Christians.
I also liked the command to "seek learning, even by study and also by
faith." I definitely came to the point where I desired to believe.
And yet I could not. Always hanging at the back of my mind were those
anti-Mormon works which got their facts right. Faith is not a perfect
knowledge, but the Latter-day Saints' faith is based on verifiable
information. The Latter-day Saints themselves were the ones who suggested
that faith must be grounded in reason, else why should they actively
encourage learning at all? My studies had thus far shown that the Gospel of
the Latter-day Saints could not be true.

This problem intensified somewhat when Carrie and I started dating and
talking about marriage. Throughout this time, we kept on discussing our
faith openly, and we encouraged each other solely on the basis of commonly
held beliefs. But Carrie wanted the temple, and that meant I had to become a
Latter-day Saint. And this I could not do unless I could be convinced from
the facts that the Church was what it said it was. We had many arguments
over this point; I insisted that she had to prove that the Gospel was true if
she expected me to accept it.

She tried, and she tried hard. She checked out books from her Institute
library. She bought Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon. Through a friend of her family's, I received a little book called
Why I Believe by George Edward Clark. I dutifully read everything that she
got, and rejected them all. Few of them addressed the problems I had with
the Church, or glossed them over. Sorenson may have achieved plausibility
for placing the Book of Mormon lands where he did, but he never approached
the probability demanded by archaeologists.

So we always reached an impasse, with neither one of us getting anywhere.
We even broke up for a short while, but our love drew us back together. Our
problems remained. We were both convinced that God wanted us to marry each
other. But Carrie remained convinced that she was to marry in the temple,
and I was sure that it did not matter.

Lets go back to Alma 32 and read verse 28:

Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a
seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good
seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the
Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and
when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within
yourselves--It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is
good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my
understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Actually, even a good seed must be placed in good soil, or, even if the
seed is good, it will not grow very well. The soil must provide the right
nutrients. It was not the seed that was bad. The only soil I had was the
soil of the anti-Mormon books leaving its undeniable hold on me. As I said,
I had the will to believe, I just did not have a reason to believe.
Part of the problem was my view of the Bible. Like most conservative
Baptists, I viewed the Bible as being completely inerrant. 1 Ne. 13, 2 Ne.
29, and the eighth Article of Faith were direct attacks on the Bible, and
often used as an excuse for ignorance. One time, Carrie used the excuse of
"mistranslation or missing parts" one too many times, and I yelled at her
something to the effect of, "Don't try to hide behind that excuse ever again!
Unless you can offer hard evidence that something is missing from the Bible
or that mistranslations have not been corrected, I don't ever want to hear it
again!"

She never did that again to this day. If I still harbor any resentments
of any kind from this period, it is this: Latter-day Saints try too often to
get around problems with the Bible by assuming the mistranslation or removal
of certain parts. This begs the question, never resolves the problem.
Having looked into the issue very carefully, I have no choice but to conclude
that the Bible is basically reliable.

And this is was the key. The Bible is basically reliable, but it is not
completely inerrant, as I had been led to believe. This nearly undermined my
whole faith in Christ.

It was a book meant primarily for Catholics which finally gave me some
good soil in which to plant the seed of the Gospel. It pointed out to me
many new spiritual insights which I could reconcile a Bible with errors of
fact without undermining faith in Christ. It also pointed out a few things
about the nature of prophecy and inspiration that I had never even thought of
before. I was now well on my way not to Catholic faith, but to a knowledge
of the restored Gospel.

With the idea of complete inerrancy taken care of, I could look at the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with new eyes. There were still
several problems with Church history that needed to be taken care of, and so
I turned to newer sources to resolve these problems. The turning point,
ironically enough, came when I read Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History.
Where she saw evidence of fraud, I saw evidence of inspiration from God.
Finally, I had a good seed, planted in good soil, and starting to swell
in my breast. Back to Alma 32:

Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea;
nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow,
then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and
sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen
your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that
this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now,
behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every
seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things," said
Moroni, "that ye would . . . ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall
receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal
Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall
ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will
manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by
the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
Did you know that the Hebrews considered the heart the seat of the
intellect? This passage could easily read, "Ponder it in your minds."
Moroni was telling us to ponder it in our minds, to study it out, then ask
God for confirmation of the Holy Ghost.

Oliver Cowdery was told the same thing in April 1829 while he and the
Prophet Joseph Smith were working on the Book of Mormon. D&C 9:7-8 reads:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it
unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say
unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it
be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within
you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

In March 1836 at the dedication of the temple at Kirtland, Joseph Smith
offered these words as part of his prayer:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words
of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning
even by study and also by faith. (D&C 109:7)

Notice how study again is first. By study and by faith. It was a long
and sometimes torturous path for me. But I finally gained a testimony of the
restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a
Prophet inspired by God. Moreover, I have a testimony that diligent study,
hard work, and performing an experiment will eventually lead to a perfect
knowledge, if guided by faith.

I opened with Alma, and I will close with Alma. The final verses of
chapter here offer me the same hope that it should offer you who are willing
to nourish the word by study and by faith:

But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to
grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward
to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree
springing up unto everlasting life. And because of your diligence and your
faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root
in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most
precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above
all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast
upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall
ye thirst.

Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your
diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring
forth fruit unto you.

I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.