“The Mormon Theological Paradigm: How Reform Mormonism is Preserving Mormonism’s Most Valuable Heirloom” by Rob Lauer

Presented on Saturday, August 3, 2024, at the 2024 Sunstone Symposium, held at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

In reading the title of my presentation, “The Mormon Theological Paradigm: How Reform Mormonism is Preserving Mormonism’s Most Valuable Heirloom,” you may have two questions. Question one: “What do you mean by the Mormon Theological Paradigm?” And question two: “What in the devil is Reform Mormonism?” I’ll tackle question two first.

Reform Mormonism

Let me start by explaining what Reform Mormonism is not.

Reform Mormonism is not The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Reform Mormonism has nothing to do with reforming the LDS Church.

Reform Mormonism has nothing to do with reforming Community of Christ.

In fact, Reform Mormonism has no connection whatsoever to any other existing church, sect, or organization within the Restoration movement. Nor do Reform Mormons have any interest in reforming, changing, or competing with any other existing church, sect, or religious organizations.

Reform Mormonism is its own distinct Mormon denomination. Reform Mormonism is not something new. In fact, Reform Mormonism began over 22 years ago and was legally registered and established in Washington state as a non-profit in 2002. Its central website, www.reformmormonism.org, has been online for over 22 years. I have been a Reform Mormon for over 20 years.

In February of 2004, I was a “homeless Mormon.” That’s not to say that I was a homeless person who happened to be a Mormon, but I was a devout believer in Mormonism’s unique, heterodox theology regarding the Human and the Divine, but I had no denominational home. A little over a year earlier, in January 2003, I had an intensely powerful, life-changing epiphany that crystalized and confirmed my Mormon faith while putting to rest, once and for all, my then 27-year-old denominational crisis with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I walked away from LDS Church membership, never once looking back or regretting the decision, but still feeling Mormon to my core. Over the next year, if I was asked about my religious affiliation, I would say: “I’m Mormon, but I’m no longer affiliated with the LDS Church—the big Mormon Church—with headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.” Since most friends asking me about my religion simply wanted to know if I went anywhere in particular on Sunday mornings, the typical response to my convoluted answer was a dazed look of confusion, followed by an “Oh…okay.”

Freed from the necessity of having to make my understanding of Mormon history, culture, and theology conform to the programs and policies of the LDS Church and the pronouncements of its leaders, I was immersing myself more joyfully than ever in studying the evolution of Mormon theology during its first two decades. This study wasn’t merely academic—or the obsession of a religious history nerd (though I am most certainly that.) My continued study of Mormon theology gave me insights into life and the human condition. My approach was rationalistic, critical, and even scholarly, but the results were devotional in nature. Even though I was no longer in the LDS Church and rejected its truth claims, I could reflect on my decades of Church activity as profoundly meaningful in new ways. I certainly was no longer a Latter-day Saint, but I was more Mormon than I had ever been. So, what kind of Mormon was I?

One evening in February of 2004, I was online reading about a recently released film about a young closeted gay man who comes to terms with his sexuality while serving on an LDS mission. The film was entitled “Latter Days”—written and directed by BYU graduate C. Jay Cox, who just a year earlier scored a major hit writing the screenplay for the Reese Witherspoon romantic comedy “Sweet Home Alabama.” By February 2004, “Latter Days” was making movie history as the highest-grossing gay-themed film up until that time. As I surfed the web, reading about the film, at the end of one article, I came across a list of links to organizations that were accepting of Gay Mormons. One of them was Reform Mormonism.org.

“Reform Mormonism.” The name intrigued me. Made me think of Reform Judaism as opposed to Orthodox or Conservative Judaism. So, I followed the link to the website, where I was greeted by the following blurbs scrolling across the screen:

• Reform Mormonism: A new Mormonism for the modern mind Redefining Mormonism—a rational alternative
• A fresh approach to Mormonism
• Progressive, inclusive Mormonism
• Mormonism focused on the individual
• “As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become” Eternal Progression as a tenet—not a marketing problem.
• “The Glory of God is intelligence.” How much exploration have you done today?
• A Mormonism you can be proud of.
• Mormonism focused on Progression instead of rules. Holy Curiosity: Children of God who aren’t afraid to question
• Mormons who never believed racism was sanctified by God.
• A non-paternalistic Mormonism.
• A non-homophobic Mormonism, Where gay bashing isn’t condoned by Church leadership
• Where discussions about caffeine can be had over a cup of coffee.
• Where belief in the 6,000-year-old Earth theory isn’t required.
• An excommunication-free zone. Gays, feminists, and intellectuals welcomed
• You don’t have to be LDS to be Mormon. We’re not Latter-day Saints—and we’re proud of that.

Upon reading such statements, I dove headfirst into the website—which, at that time, was fairly massive. There were essays upon essays laying out the Reform Mormon approach to various topics, with titles such as:

• “Morality is more than a sexual code.”
• “The Freedom to explore and the insecurity of independence”
• “God is more than our objectification of him as a man.”
• “The power to act in God’s name is not as scarce as some believe”
• “Scriptures contain a mixture of personal opinion, inspiration, and truth.”
• “Toward a Healthier Perspective of Joseph Smith”

There was even a Reform Mormon Proclamation on the Family that embraced all committed, loving marriages and families—regardless of gender or sexual orientation. There were ideas for incorporating the Reform Mormon Sacrament as part of one’s Sabbath meal, which struck me as completely harmonious with the practices of Jesus’s earliest followers.

Absent from the website were any hints of legalism, authoritarianism, scriptural literalism, or religious fundamentalism. While there were examples of how Reform Mormonism’s approach to faith differed from those of the LDS Church, there was nothing of an anti-LDS Church nature—nothing criticizing or condemning the Church. In fact, the focus was not on any church at all. The focus was on the individual, pursuing knowledge, free agency, value formation, personal revelation, and Progression. The site encouraged those who identified as Reform Mormons to express their faith and values in any way they deemed honest and authentic—writing papers, starting study groups, engaging in local community improvement efforts, etc. The website invited anyone to submit essays, studies, or papers for publication. The essays on the website didn’t focus on the LDS Church but on how individuals could find meaning for themselves in Mormon theology, myths, and traditions outside of the framework of an ecclesiastical institution.

In Reform Mormonism, I found a home. For the past 20 years, when anyone asks me about my religious affiliation, I simply reply, “I’m a Reform Mormon.” Usually, that is all I need to say. People seem to understand that I’m a Mormon but probably more progressive than many Latter-day Saints.

So, what is Reform Mormonism?

As I explained, Reform Mormonism—has no connection to the LDS Church, Community of Christ, or any other denomination tracing its origins to the early Mormon movement. Reform Mormonism is a distinct tradition that has reformed its approach to the Mormon faith in much the same way Reform Judaism has reformed its approach to the Jewish faith.

Reform Mormonism embraces the evolving nature of religious faith and the superiority of its ethical aspects to its organizational and ceremonial ones. It embraces the foundational Mormon doctrine of continuous revelation, seeing it as closely intertwined with human reason. Thus, Reform Mormonism embraces a non-literal approach to scripture and rejects the fundamentalist mindset as detrimental to the Eternal Progression of the Human Family. Reform Mormonism embraces secular religious scholarship and scholarly criticism of scriptural texts as necessary and valuable in understanding and finding meaning in scripture.

Reform Mormonism regards all ordinances as symbolic–not Divinely mandated legal requirements. Ordinances are created by humans to reveal aspects of Godliness, to illustrate concepts related to Progression, to celebrate spiritual and ethical commitments, and to mark significant turning points in life. An ordinance’s power and authority result from the faith, understanding, and Spirit the participants bring to its observance.

Theology is valued for establishing a paradigm—a figurative model—for exploring, understanding, and finding meaning in life and the ongoing revelation of existence. Theology also provides individuals and communities with concepts, stories, symbols, myths, terminology and language for sharing those understandings and meanings.

Reform Mormonism is committed to preserving Mormonism as a distinct religious tradition without sacrificing objective, critical scholarship and modern innovations. We embrace diversity while asserting commonality. (We’re all Mormons—black, white, male, female, gay, straight, rich, poor, etc.”) We affirm our beliefs without rejecting those who doubt. In fact, those who doubt provide an important springboard for further exploration—and exploration is an essential tenant of Reform Mormonism.

While the teachings and character of Christ play a central role in Reform Mormon faith and ethics, it is understood that Mormonism does not share Christianity’s theological paradigm. Just as Christianity sprang from Judaism and evolved into an entirely new religion, Reform Mormons hold that Mormonism sprang from early 19th-century Christianity and evolved into an entirely new distinct religion. Therefore, we embrace the words “Mormon” and “Mormonism”—rather than “Christian” and “Christianity”—as more correctly and properly identifying us and our religion.

Reform Mormonism does not distance itself from early Mormonism’s distinct theological innovations, nor does it try to force them to fit the theological paradigm of Christianity and Monotheism. Instead, we fully embrace those theological innovations and declare that they established a new theological paradigm—one offering a new understanding of human nature, human potential, and the value of the individual. Upon that foundation, we build and innovate our faith.

One’s personal acceptance of Mormonism’s distinct theological paradigm and commitment to living by its inherent values makes one a Reform Mormon—not accepting the claims of a specific church, the authority of particular ecclesiastical leaders, or submitting to rituals and ordinances.

For Reform Mormons, the Church is not a thing—not an “it” that one joins, attends, and gives time and money to. For Reform Mormons, “church” is a personal pronoun—a “they,” a “him,” a “her.” This understanding is reflected in the New Testament and “The Book of Mormon,” where personal pronouns are used when referring to churches. This understanding is also reflected in D&C 11: 67—68. Which reads, “Behold this is my doctrine: whosoever repenteth, and cometh unto me, the same is my Church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me but is against me.” In harmony with Mormonism’s earliest definition of “church,” Reform Mormonism holds that any individual who embraces the concept of Eternal Progression and strives to develop within themselves the virtues they envision God possessing IS the Church—whether they are alone or in community with others.

Therefore, in Reform Mormonism, there are no commands to “follow a prophet” or submit to outer authorities. There are no claims of “Priesthood Keys” or angelic ordinations. No one is claiming to be “One Mighty and Strong.” Reform Mormonism’s completely natural origins were laid out by Michael Richan in his 2002 essay “Reform Mormonism: Leaving the Latter-day Saints and Reclaiming One’s Tradition,” which was published on the now-defunct Zarahemla City Limits website.

In this essay, Mike Richan shared “how Reform Mormonism formed as a result of distinct personal needs that I see reflected within the ex-Mormon (and questioning Mormon) culture…how I came to terms with the draw of Mormon history and theology, and how I reclaimed my past.”

Mike’s experience was like that of countless Latter-day Saints who were raised in the LDS Church but later questioned and left it. After serving a mission, Mike left the LDS Church simply because he no longer believed in its claims. He became an atheist and embraced the necessity of rational thought. But a decade later, when he discovered and delved into what was then being labeled “the New Mormon History,” he began reconsidering the role of faith and Mormonism in his life. Mike wrote:

“This draw to Mormon history and theology, especially my connection of its theology to other esoteric religious ideas from history, surprised me. I did not understand why, after ten years of atheism and a palpable dislike of Mormon society and culture, I would find myself so engaged with these materials…I can’t describe my activities as a search for God—that wasn’t the motivation. I was after knowledge, the type of knowledge that comes from experience. My years of atheism had created in me a great respect for rationalism, and I searched for it within the religions I explored. While I was willing to admit that life seemed to exist somewhere between the “traditional” worldview and the “scientific” worldview, the idea of God was still, to me, the ultimate irrationality. Once I discovered Reform Mormonism and its approach to the divine—that the search for knowledge was divine—all of that changed; I was able to reconcile my necessity for rationalization with a view of God that I felt made sense.”

It wasn’t until his delve into Mormon history that Mike began to feel anger toward the institutional LDS Church. He wondered why, for so many like him, leaving the LDS Church in and of itself wasn’t enough. He wrote:

“Why did so many people (myself included) feel the need to disparage the LDS faith upon leaving it. What about being involved in Mormonism sticks with a person even after they’ve left the LDS Church? What happens to that person whose formative years were steeped in Mormon society, culture, and theology, who later leaves one or two of these? Why are Mormon theology, society, and culture so interconnected, and can parts of it survive if not so connected? What happens to the person who, acting in harmony with their integrity, removes themselves from a belief system that they no longer have faith in but find that, due to the tight integration of Mormon theology, society, and culture, they have also removed themselves from their own personal history and tradition?'”

Mike concluded that “a lifetime of investment in a particular tradition needn’t be abandoned simply because one does not believe, or no longer believes, the formal teachings or rules ” of a religious institution within that tradition. Of his anger at the LDS Church, Mike wrote:

“…really, my anger came from realizing that I had turned over control of my history and tradition to those who claimed the authority of my theology… my anger only subsided when I decided I would not allow my history to be removed from me … I took back control of the terms of “Mormonism” and began to organize it in a way that worked for me; I quickly discovered that I was not alone in this need and these views…In returning to [Mormonism], I was determined to accomplish several things in the interest of my own religious future.”

First, I was not willing to rebuild my faith upon a foundation that could so easily be dismantled by confrontation with simple facts—both historical facts about Mormonism itself or any other religion, and scientific fact… something within me told me that when I hit upon the real thing, they would naturally fit, that this shouldn’t be a big deal.

Second, I was going to reclaim my history and tradition, and find a way to become at ease with it and eventually embrace and love it… I remember the moment when I found I was able to call myself a Mormon again (albeit a Reform Mormon… I felt a tremendous sense of completion and having “arrived home” when I said in my mind: “I am a Reform Mormon,” and it felt good. It felt like restoration.

“Third, I felt I could not involve myself with a religious structure, Church, or organization that functioned with a top-down dynamic, interested in exercising control over its adherents. I had rebelled against the authoritarianism of the LDS Church when I was within it; as an outsider, I found that authoritarianism repellent. My new view of spiritual and religious opportunity called for a church or organization to support my Progression through life, not dominate or control it. This required the organization— if it even was an organization—to place every adherent—including me—at the top of the chart and to exist under me as a constant and unfailing support, unwilling to remove itself from my life unless I chose to remove it. “

“Some will no doubt view this as…having constructed God to meet my needs. That is exactly what I have done. That is exactly what Reform Mormonism does. Laying out the ideas behind Reform Mormonism required a great deal of thought and rationalization: that is how it became rational. In that rationality was something I could call “home.” Others I showed it to found a home in it as well. I believe there are thousands of people—active LDS, non-active LDS, and non-LDS—for whom this rational approach may be a path that provides both the opportunity to reclaim their Mormon past and the opportunity to enhance Progression. To those for whom this path appeals, I believe it provides support in place on control; fresh air instead of suffocation; positive movement instead of warnings against exploration; opportunity instead of obligation; joy instead of fear.”

“…I realized it is not the fault of the LDS Church that there is nothing for those who refuse to have their tradition and history taken from them after leaving the Church, either voluntarily or not. It was up to me to create that, to create a way in which that retention could occur. I believe the desire for that and all the concepts behind Reform Mormonism had existed long before me and were active in the minds of people in the past and in the present. I merely chose to organize them in form and present them formally. I believe that they present an opportunity for good in many lives, and that belief became my motivation for sharing them.”

Reform Mormonism has brought immense good into my life. It has allowed me to maintain my Mormon identity in a way that makes sense to others; it has given me opportunities to meet and interact with other Reform Mormons online and in person. These Reform Mormons come from a variety of religious backgrounds. Many have never belonged to the LDS Church or Community of Christ but are drawn to Mormon theology. In February 2012, I participated in the Reform Mormon Endowment. Of the dozen people present, only three of us had ever been LDS. I’ve had the privilege of administering Reform Mormon Sealings. As a state-licensed marriage officiant in the Commonwealth of Virginia, shortly after the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, I had the privilege of sealing in marriage a same-sex couple—one of them a Reform Mormon, the other a Baptist—in a beautiful ceremony that was witnessed by family members and friends, a few of whom were former LDS, the majority of whom had no connection with Mormonism.

One of the greatest blessings of Reform Mormonism is the freedom to delve into Mormon history, theology, and myth and share insights, speculations, and theories without fear of censor. Because Reform Mormonism is non-hierarchal and does not define itself as Christian or monotheistic, Mormonism’s unique, heterodox theological paradigm can be explored and built upon unapologetically.

Which brings me to the first question some of you may have had when reading the title of this presentation: What do I mean when I refer to the Mormon Theological Paradigm? Before defining that term and exploring what it might offer to 21st -century seekers, I want to briefly share how Reform Mormons approach scripture.

Scripture as Art

What initially distinguished Joseph Smith’s followers from others and earned them the name “Mormons” was that they accepted a book of questionable origin as scripture and that their understanding of what scriptures were differed radically from the Christian understanding.

Christianity had a closed scriptural cannon: the Bible alone was the Word of God. “The Book of Mormon” in II Nephi 13 famously denounced those who hold such views as fools and embraced the idea of an open cannon.

But what is most unique in the early Mormon understanding of scripture is what I have dubbed “The Mormon Doctrine of Scriptural Errancy.” The Bible was seen as errant: I Nephi 13 declares that over the centuries, “many plain and precious truths” had been removed from it.

But “The Book of Mormon”—on its title page and in many passages throughout— acknowledges that it, too, contains human errors. The title page declares, “If there are faults, they are the mistakes of men.”

I Nephi 19:6-7 explains that scriptural content is often determined by the writer’s personal preferences.

Toward the end of the book, the character of Moroni writes: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. (Mormon 9:31-33).

Rather than declaring that “The Book of Mormon” is inerrant, the characters recording the events in its pages constantly confess that they are struggling with limitations in knowledge and understanding when writing their scriptural accounts.

Beyond the Bible and “The Book of Mormon,” II Nephi 29 presents divine revelation and the writing of scriptures as a global phenomenon. Every nation receives light from God, but it is received “according to their language, unto their understanding,”—leaving the door open to human errors in the writing of their scriptures.

How does this global phenomenon of inspiration and scripture-writing work?

According to D&C 9, the process is not automatic or mechanical and can’t be forced. The writing of scripture involves mental exertion, pondering matters, thinking deeply, making decisions, and seeking emotional confirmation. Even after doing this, the writer might experience “a stupor of thought.” But at some point, the ideas and words begin to flow; they feel right, and the writer feels “a burning in the bosom” and “knows” what is being written is “true.”

According to D&C 9, this is the process by which “The Book of Mormon” was written. It is the same process that any author would use in writing a book or any artist would use in creating a work of art.

The act of creating art can seem spontaneous. But this spontaneity is an illusion. Consciously or subconsciously, artists choose what to include or not include in their art, what to emphasize or not emphasize—all of these choices are based on their particular point of view and what feels right to them individually. Artists, like all people, are profoundly shaped and limited by the cultures and times in which they live. Why should Divine inspiration preclude human limitations? Why should scriptures be inerrant?

Reform Mormonism holds that scriptures can never be inerrant because they are written by human beings; inspiration and revelation are filtered through the psyches, personal experiences, and preferences of individuals who are shaped by the culture and times in which they live.

In short, Reform Mormons affirm that all scripture is art and is most meaningful—spiritually, ethically, and intellectually—when understood as such.

If all scripture is art, does that mean all scripture is fiction? Some scriptures are pure fiction and myth, some are poetry, some are historical, and some are mythical embellishments of historical events.

Before dismissing scriptural fiction as somehow “less true,” consider that Jesus taught using purely fictional stories—parables.

Consider, too, that there is no archeological evidence for a mass exodus of Israelites from Egypt or of an Israelite conquest of Canaan. The consensus among most Biblical archeologists and scholars is that the Biblical story of the Exodus is fictional—an Israelite/Judean myth. And yet, it is one of the most powerful, meaningful, and consequential myths in human history. For over 2000 years, the Jewish people have celebrated it with Passover. The Puritans who settled Massachusetts drew inspiration from it. So did 19th -century Abolitionists, as well as enslaved Black Americans escaping to freedom, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ’60s—not to mention those Mormons who followed Brigham Young to Utah.

In approaching scripture as art, concerns over historicity, infallibility, and inerrancy evaporate. Consider the music, poems, books, and films that have touched and inspired you. Were they infallible? That song that never fails to move you whenever you hear it—is it inerrant? The novel you read or the movie you saw—the one that stayed with you, that gave you new insights into human nature and life itself —was it historically accurate or “the most correct” of any other novel or movie?

Such questions make absolutely no sense when it comes to the spiritual power of art to give us insights into the human condition. According to Reform Mormonism, the same principle applies to all scripture.

Personally, I find “The Book of Mormon” meaningful because it is so obviously a product of early 19th century America—a time of great tension, hopefulness, and insecurity because, for the first time ever, a nation made up almost entirely of Christians chose to establish a representative government that was entirely secular with no established religion. “The Book of Mormon” was something of a cautionary tale for its time. Two hundred years later, the philosophic tensions between religious and secular thought are not only still present in America, but have intensified and gone global. So, for me, “The Book of Mormon” remains meaningful.

Historical Context

Joseph Smith and the new theology he developed can also be understood in context of early 19th -century America. It was a time marked by extreme philosophical tension, one demanding a prophetic response.

On the one hand, Americans embraced the concepts of natural individual rights embodied in The Declaration of Independence. Their Creator had endowed them with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On the other hand, they felt the pull of Calvinism and the Christian concept of total human depravity, still echoing from Jonathan Edward’s fiery 1741 sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Individuals were free to do whatever they desired, but all human desires were products of a fallen nature and, therefore, inherently corrupt.

On the one hand, the Creator envisioned in the Declaration of Independence endowed each individual with self-determination and a just claim to their life and the pursuit of personal happiness.

On the other hand, they sensed the chastisement of Christianity’s God, warning them that self-determination was a worldly delusion; without submission to the Creator of Nature—a Deity beyond human comprehension, the delusion of self-determination would inevitably lead them to the everlasting Hell they by nature deserved. When a renewed call to return to Christianity’s God reached its zenith, it was dubbed The Second Great Awakening. To disciples of Enlightenment thinking, however, this so-called “Awakening” seemed like a return to the sleep of Humanity’s dark past.

The final decades of the American Enlightenment overlapped with the opening decades of the Second Great Awakening, sewing the ground for the American Renaissance in literature—an age filled with prophetic voices. Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, Dickinson, Alcott, and Whitman sought to free the individual from the tangled web of Calvinism and Christian concepts of total human depravity. This prophetic attempt at untangling was also evident in the period’s plethora of new religious movements. Birthed in the fires of American revivalism, many eventually broke ranks with Christian orthodoxy and even Christianity itself. And ultimately, nearly all of them failed.

Mormonism was an exception.

Taking elements from American Protestantism, New England folklore and folk magic, esoterica, the speculative theology, and the emerging science of his day, Joseph brought forth a new vision of the individual—uncreated, eternally autonomous, existing in the image of God, endowed with natural rights, capable of Eternal Progression and eventually, Godhood.

The Paradigm

This vision established a new theological paradigm, which I call the Mormon Theological Paradigm.

Because this paradigm contradicts the paradigm established by Monotheism, it sidesteps the issues raised by Monotheism. (For example, if God is omnipotent and good, why is there evil and suffering?) But, in rejecting Monotheism, Joseph Smith’s theology has been labeled blasphemous and heretical by advocates of Christian orthodoxy—and from a Christian and monotheistic perspective, they are absolutely correct.

Because of these labels, the LDS Church, Community of Christ, and other denominations within the Restoration movement have, to varying degrees, distanced themselves from the radical Nature of the Mormon Theological Paradigm and retreated backward to Monotheism’s paradigm. Reform Mormonism is the exception.

The move backward has been facilitated by the fact that Joseph Smith—and Mormonism’s earliest theological innovators, such as Parley and Orson Pratt—used terminology derived from the Bible and the Christian landscape of their time. Only Anti-Mormon pamphleteers, philosophers such as Sterling M. McMurrin, and writers such as O. Kendle White have emphasized that although early Mormons and mainstream Christians used many of the same words, the definitions attached to these words were not only radically different but often contradictory. Since the late 1970s, the LDS Church, in particular, has taken advantage of this ignorance and has been so successful at distancing itself from the Mormon Theological Paradigm that, sometime within the next 30 years, the denomination may completely fade into the Protestant landscape.

It is my conviction that the Mormon Paradigm is the greatest theological innovation of the past one thousand years and is ideally suited as the basis for a vibrant religion that will appeal to rational people living in an age dominated by science, technology, and an ever-expanding view of human rights and individual freedom.

Let us now look at this paradigm. In what follows, I will cite scriptures, but not as proof texts in the traditional sense. No idea is true just because it appears in scripture. Instead, since these scriptures are art produced by Joseph Smith, I cite them to show that the theological propositions being made are consistent with those found in his writings and teachings.

The Three Natures

The foundation for any theological system consists of what I’ll call “The Three Natures.”

1. The Nature of Existence
2. Human Nature
3. The Nature of the Relationship of the Human to the Divine

The Nature of Existence

In Monotheism, all existence is dependent on one thing alone—God. God is the First Cause, the Creator of all that is, was, or ever will be. God is Omnipotent, Omniscient. God alone is selfexistent. God alone is eternal—without beginning or end. Existence exists because God caused it to come into being. Because nature is a creation of God, God is superior to Nature—God is supernatural. And because God is envisioned as a conscious being, Monotheism is based on the primacy of consciousness over existence—of mind over Matter. The mind of God came first; God’s mind created existence; God’s mind controls existence; God can annihilate existence.

In contrast, Joseph Smith embraced the Primacy of Existence over Consciousness. Consciousness was an eternal entity within an uncreated cosmos without a beginning or end.

Doctrine & Covenants 93:33 states: “The Elements are eternal.” Joseph Smith taught that the elements “can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed.”

Each element has a distinct nature; each is different from all others; each is governed by the eternal, unchanging law of its identity. No one element need be—or ever can be—like another; no element should—or can—change its nature.

And because each element is eternally distinct, it can join with other elements to organize something new. One atom of oxygen sealed to two atoms of hydrogen forms water. If the nature of either element differed, water would cease to be.

Each element—each entity participating in any organization—retains its unique individual nature. No element, in joining with others, is required to change. Indeed, it must maintain its distinct nature and identity, or the attempted organization will fail.

In short, Pluralism is the foundation of all existence. The Eternal is not one thing alone. Variety, differences, contrasting natures, and Individuality are all Eternal.

The cosmos is not the creation of any one being or power; it is not dependent upon or controlled by any single being or power. The cosmos is a dynamic organization of many distinct, autonomous, eternal, self-existing elements and forces. The Eternal is Plural and Diverse. Diversity is predicated on the reality of Individuality, on recognizing and respecting differences—inherent differences and differences that are chosen.

There is no such thing as a “beginning” when one is dealing with the concept of existence itself. Existence simply is. It is eternal; it cannot be created or destroyed. Existence is primary and supreme. Everything—the elements, galaxies, black holes, planets, life forms, and God—are individual entities within the whole.

Stars, planets, solar systems, etc.., come and go; they may be organized, evolve, and decay. Moses 1:33-38 declares, “There are many worlds that have passed away…there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they to man…as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come.” However, because the elements and space are eternal, there is no “First Cause” or “Creator” as declared by Monotheism. The creation myth that Joseph put forth in Abraham chapter 3 presents the Gods (plural) as saying, “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will males an earth…and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” While The Book of Abraham is not a translation of an ancient Egyptian papyrus, the physics of its creation myth are more in line with science than the two Bronze Age creation myths found in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Matter is eternal; it is self-existent. According to D&C 131:7-8, Joseph taught, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter.” To exist is to have a material existence. Even those things commonly referred to as “spirit” have, on some level, a material/chemical/atomic existence, though they may not yet be detectable by the senses—even with the aid of technology. Dark Matter would be an example of such a phenomenon.

Human Nature

We’ll move on to Joseph Smith’s view of Human Nature, drawing from the two most theologically-thick of his revelations: D&C sections 88 and 93—both of which draw from Biblical imagery to blur the distinctions between the Human and the Divine.

Regarding Human Nature, D&C 88:15 states: “The spirit and the body are the soul of man”— a view of human nature that is more harmonious with the ancient Hebraic conception that is the Christian/Platonic conception.

In D&C 88 and 93, and in many of his sermons, Joseph uses the words “spirit,” “mind,” “intelligence,” and “Light” interchangeably. The mind/intelligence/spirit combined with the body constitute the essence (the soul) of being human. Divide the two, and one no longer has a human being. Both are essential to life. The Spirit without the body is a ghost; the body without the Spirit is a corpse. There is no inherent dichotomy between the two, no intrinsic battle between the Spirit and the flesh. Both mind/spirit and body are essential for human happiness—or, in the words of D&C 93:33, “a fullness of joy.”

The human body is good. Joseph taught that embodied physical existence is superior to a mere spiritual existence.

Joseph famously rejected the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, which taught human nature was fallen and inherently sinful. In harmony with the ending of Genesis chapter 1, human nature was seen as good. In II Nephi 2, Joseph turned the Christian interpretation of the so-called Fall of Adam and Eve on its head, presenting eating from the Tree of Knowledge as a step forward in human progress: “Adam fell that men might be. Men are that they might have joy.”

Not only is human life on earth good, but human life was presented as being God’s highest value. In Moses 2:39 (another of Joseph’s reworking of Genesis’s creation myths), God declares: “This is my work and glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

Because death is a reality, the myth of a future physical resurrection (whether taken literally or not) is consistent with valuing the human body and human life on earth. D&C 88:15-16 declares: “The Spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection of the dead is the redemption of the soul.”

Just as the elements are eternal, so is some aspect of an individual’s mind/intelligence/spirit— though it is in a constant state of evolution and Progression. No God or higher power created the individual mind/intelligence/spirit. (D&C 93:29)

Joseph Smith taught:

“The mind of man. Where did it come from? All doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning, but it is not so. The very idea lessens the character of man, in my estimation. I don’t believe the doctrine…’We say that God Himself is a self-existent God…Who told you that man did not exist in like manner, upon the same principle?… I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man because it has no beginning or end…Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle…and there is no creation about it……the mind of man is co-equal with God.”

No God or outside force controls the individual mind/intelligence/spirit. The individual is, by nature, completely autonomous. One’s mind is by nature free. Against its will, it bends to no force outside of itself, succumbing only to reason or the relinquishing of rational thought. A mind’s existence as a mind depends on this inherent autonomy. D&C 93:30 states that each intelligence “is independent to act in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself; otherwise, there is no existence.”

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph proclaimed, “All spirits [minds]…are susceptible to enlargement.”

An individual’s mind is enlarged as it learns the Truth. Despite Joseph’s knowledge of and involvement in esoteric traditions, his definition of Truth is not mystical. He defined Truth in very rational terms. In D&C 93:23-25, he taught: “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come,” and, as if to keep his followers from delving into more subjective, spiritual, and mystical conceptions of Truth, he added: “and whatsoever is more than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.”

Truth is a knowledge of the facts—an understanding of objective reality. Therefore, Truth, by its Nature, is non-contradictory. All Truth—regardless of its source—can be circumscribed into one great whole. Whereas Christianity held that humans were by their nature limited in what they could know, Joseph, in D&C 93: 28, taught that a person could continually receive “truth and light until he is glorified and knoweth all things.”

According to D&C 130: 18-19, humans benefit eternally from whatever intelligence and knowledge they can gain in this life.

Individuals are always free to make decisions based on the knowledge they acquire. They are free to take any action, but they are not free to choose the consequences of their actions. According to Joseph, cause and effect is an eternal law. A “blessing” is not randomly bestowed according to the whims of God or some higher power. According to D&C 130:20-21, it is the natural outcome of “obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

The purpose of the mind is to comprehend existence and the principles and laws governing nature. Since existence is eternal and infinite, the mind’s capacity for comprehension is also eternal and infinite. The human potential for Progression is endless. Because each individual is autonomous, Progression is individualized. No two individuals will gain the same knowledge or cultivate the same character traits at the same rate or in the same ways. Because individuals are self-directed and deal with individualized circumstances, at any given time, they will vary in the development of their talents and abilities; there will be degrees of accomplishment, insight, and knowledge. This, in essence, is the message of Joseph and Sidney Rigdon’s February 16, 1832, Vision of universal salvation, in which all individuals are glorified in varying degrees in accordance with their personal growth and development. There is nothing negative about this diversity; it results from individual autonomy. Because free will is not something God or some higher power gives the individual but is a part of one’s eternal nature, one never loses the ability to learn and progress. Individuals may redirect themselves, pursue new knowledge, and make different choices at any point throughout all eternity.

Defining God

Before considering the nature of the relationship of the Human to the Divine, we should first look at Joseph Smith’s most controversial teachings: those regarding the Nature of God.

The popular theory adopted by most historians is that because “The Book of Mormon’s” Christology is a mixture of Modalism and Trinitarianism, Joseph’s concept of God differed little from that of mainstream Protestantism until the Nauvoo period, which one Community of Christ scholar called “a theological trainwreck.” While the Nauvoo Period could certainly be called an organizational trainwreck, a political trainwreck, and an ecclesiastical trainwreck, complete with clerical sexual abuse, the theology in Joseph’s King Follet Discourse and in his final June 1843 sermon, in which he defended the Plurality of Gods, was consistent with many of his earliest teachings on the Nature of God.

For instance, though numerous “Book of Mormon” verses refer to God as omnipotent, Alma 43:22 teaches that God’s existence is dependent upon the existence of law and a balance between the principles of justice and mercy: “If not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.” In other words, God is not the originator of law, justice, and mercy; God’s existence as God is predicated on those pre-existing laws and principles.

Which begs the question: “Is something right because God says so, or does God say so because it’s right?” A monotheist would go with the first option, but in 1829, Joseph seemed to be arguing for the second.

Christianity emphasizes the ontological divide between the Human and the Divine. In contrast, III Nephi 12:48 (echoing the Sermon on the Mount) exhorts readers to be perfect like Christ and God the Father, while Moroni 7:48 (echoing I John) promises that when God appears, those who are filled with pure love will be like him, and “be purified even as he is pure.”

On February 16, 1832, this idea of humans achieving Godlike perfection and purity was taken even further with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon’s Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory—a vision of universal salvation in which humans may “overcome all things” and become “gods.” This universalist vision with polytheistic imagery was considered so heretical by some that Dan Vogel, in his 2023 book “Charisma Under Pressure,” cites it as the motive for the mobbing, tarring, and feathering of Joseph and Sidney five weeks later, on March 20, 1832. (CUP, p. 151).

But, in my opinion, Joseph’s most radical early definition of God is found in the Seventh Lecture on Faith, published in the first edition of Doctrine & Covenants in 1835. Emphasizing perfectionism and the human potential for becoming one with God, the Seventh Lecture on Faith redefines salvation as becoming like God; it declares that Christ is “a saved being,” and—most astounding of all—it defines God the Father as “the great prototype of all saved beings.” Nine years before the King Follet Discourse and a year before the Kirtland Temple dedication, Joseph was presenting God as the prototype of human potential. By 1835, ontological differences between humans, Christ, and God had collapsed within Joseph’s theology.

In a letter from Liberty Jail, dated March 20, 1839, Joseph was seemingly open to polytheism when he promised his followers “a time to come in which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.” (D&C 121:28)

Conceptually, then, it was a small leap to the understanding of God—and Gods—presented in his April 7, 1844, King Follett Discourse:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man, for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God…the mind of man is co-equal with God…God never had the power to create the mind of man at all. God Himself could not create Himself…and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves…the same as all gods have done before you…by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one…”

The Nature of the Relationship of the Human to the Divine

Regarding the relationship between the Human and the Divine, the Mormon Theological Paradigm is best summed up by Lorenzo Snow’s famous couplet, which, to be more inclusive, I will paraphrase: “As we now are, God once was. As God now is, we may become.”

For decades, whenever someone asked me, “What do Mormons believe?” I would answer by reciting this couplet. It nearly always triggered a deeper conversation about Mormonism, and apart from a few conversations with devout Evangelicals, I can’t think of a single instance when, at the end of the conversation, the person didn’t seem favorably impressed by Mormonism’s unique theology.

Often these same people would say something like, “But that seems so liberal. Why are all the Mormons I know [meaning LDS Church members] so conservative?’ (In using the labels “liberal” and “conservative,” these folks weren’t referring to politics, but to personal attitudes. By “liberal” they seemed to mean being open-minded and embracing progress and change; while “conservative” referred to being somewhat close-minded, more guarded, and distrustful of progress and change.)

I think the great virtue of the Mormon Theological Paradigm is that it liberates one from the necessity of creating apologetics for Monotheism and Monism, and by discarding the ontological divide between Gods and humans, human life itself can be seen as Divine and human intelligence as “the glory of God.” In a nation with a government founded on Enlightenment philosophic principles—a philosophy the Religious Right attempts to vilify by labeling it “Secular Humanism”— Joseph Smith developed a theology that one could call “Religious Humanism.”

The Mormon Theological Paradigm places value on the individual, on the mind, on personal autonomy, on life here and now, on learning, progressing, and developing within one’s self the virtues one envisions God possessing. It is forward-looking—and NOT to a future in the traditionally envisioned heaven (what Parley P. Pratt called “an immaterial fairyland”) but to human life on this earth in an exalted state.

The Virtue of Playing God

Because of this, the Mormon Theological Paradigm embraces as valuable and virtuous things that many monotheists and Christians view with suspicion or dread. Historically, every advance in human knowledge, in the arts, in science, in technology, in the expansion of human rights, and in protections for individual autonomy have initially been viewed as encroachments on the God of Monotheism. If God is all-powerful, if Nature is His creation, if law is determined by His will alone, and if righteousness is defined as submission to His will, then Humanity’s manipulation of the natural order—be it the building of a dam to irrigate a desert, the building of an airplane in order to break free of gravity’s pull, the exploration of space, the use of certain procedures to battle infertility, the development of drugs and vaccines to combat disease—all of these endeavors which enhance and prolong human life on earth, could be—and have been seen as defiance of God Himself. The age-old cry has been that by advancing the interests of the human race, we are treading on dangerous ground because we are attempting to “play God.”

But what if “playing God” is actually moral and virtuous? Especially if God is envisioned as a loving, gracious, merciful, and just being who loves Humanity as parents love their children?

According to the Mormon Theological Paradigm, the objective of human existence is to learn how to “play God.” In that sense, every human achievement is a testimony to the validity of Mormonism’s concept of the Divine. To revere that concept of the Divine is to reverence human achievement, progress, and virtue and to fully embrace human potential.

Absolute Power: A Limited God is a Moral God

Granted, the God envisioned by Mormonism is limited. To exist is to have a nature. To have a nature is to have limitations. A thing cannot be A and also B at the same time. This reasoning— applicable to everything that exists—can, within the Mormon Paradigm, be applied to God.

Gods do not create Matter. Gods are bound by the laws governing existence. Gods operate in a cosmos of opposition in all things.

The Mormon God is powerless against the Free Agency of the individual’s mind because He did not create that mind and cannot control it. According to Joseph’s March 20, 1839 letter from Liberty Jail, the powers of heaven “cannot be controlled nor handled only upon principles of righteousness.” The powers of heaven withdraw from any attempt to “exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the children of men in any degree of unrighteousness.” The powers of heaven only operate through “persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness and pure knowledge.” (D&C 121:36-42)

Constrained by the nature of the powers of heaven, God can only reason with humans and offer to enter into a covenant with them—in short, to treat them with respect as ontological equals. Regarding the Mormon Paradigm’s reverence of Free Agency, consider this: any attack on human autonomy—even for the sake of “the greater good”—could be regarded as “Satanic,” for according to Mormon myth, it was this very reasoning that led to Satan’s fall. (See Moses 4:1-4).

A God of limited power can be gracious in ways unavailable to the God of Monotheism. The God of Monotheism can damn humans to Hell; He can obliterate them. But even in being gracious and allowing them into His presence, He is still a being without equals, a God with no “helpmeet”— for the Creator can never experience what it is like to be a created thing—a creature. By virtue of its nature, the creature can only imagine, but never fully comprehend, what it is like to be the Creator. Ontology forever separates the two. And if the Creator is the supreme embodiment of love, mercy, justice, and Truth—then the creature is forever incapable of fully comprehending, much less developing, those virtues.

In Monotheism, God’s relationship to Humanity is based on power alone. God is omnipotent, and all-powerful; Humanity is powerless. God is a ruler, and humans are His subjects. God is the master, and humans are His servants/slaves.

And yet, those embracing the God of Monotheism must constantly defend their belief because there is no evidence that only one Being, Power, or Force is actually controlling everything—much less a single being or power envisioned as righteous, loving, and just. Their defense is usually that “God’s ways are not our ways,” or God’s righteousness, love, and justice are different from human concepts of righteousness, love, and justice. One could conclude that God, being all-powerful, can change the definitions whenever He wants.

In contrast, the Mormon God, being bound by the same laws governing humans, is involved in an actual friendship with Humanity. This God is a parent, a teacher, a guide, a mentor, and a moral example.

“God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself—”

When Joseph Smith spoke those words in his King Follett Discourse, he referred to a God whose relationship with Humanity was based on benevolence, love, and empathy. No, this God did not create our spirits, but recognizing us as already sharing His Nature, He set about showing us the way we could develop, progress, and eventually be like Him. This limited God could not protect us from adversity any more than parents can shield their children from life’s difficulties, heartbreaks, and tragedies, but having lived through those things, this God can offer us hope, comfort, love, and a sense of meaning and purpose. And if we find it difficult to believe that such a being exists, we need only look at our fellow human beings. Most of us won’t have to look very far to find examples of people offering hope, comfort, love, and a sense of meaning and purpose to others. As these people , who you can see now are, God once was.

In 1982, Rabbi Harold S. Kushner caused a storm among theologians and believers when, in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, he proposed that in the face of human suffering, the traditional God of unlimited power could in no way be considered a moral being worthy of human love and devotion. Kushner made the case that in a world where tragedy and injustice are unavoidable realities, only a God of limited power could be considered truly moral. Only such a God could provide truly meaningful comfort and strength to those suffering.

I remember reading Kushner’s book during my last semester at BYU and thinking that his ideas were totally consistent with those of Joseph Smith. The fact that Kushner’s book, despite harsh criticism from mainstream theologians, became a best-seller and is still in print 42 years later may give some indication of how people might respond to the Mormon Theological Paradigm and its concept of a limited God.

In closing, here are the seven points of the Mormon Theological Paradigm:

1. All scripture is art and is most meaningful—spiritually, ethically, and intellectually—when understood as such.
2. The Human and the Divine share a common nature. As we now are, God once was; as God now is, we may become.
3. We develop our Divine potential by fully embracing our Humanity and cultivating within ourselves every virtue we envision God possessing.
4. To better understand the human condition is to better understand God’s past; to speculate about God’s Nature is to envision Humanity’s potential.
5. As the Human and the Divine share a common nature, all human history, all areas of human moral striving, and all fields of human knowledge are sacred, and studying them is beneficial to our eternal spiritual, ethical, and intellectual Progression.
6. All human beings are of sacred worth. Every individual human being— regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, class, or social standing—is eternal, exists in the image of the Divine, and is, by nature, a free agent capable of progressing eternally.
7. The elements are eternal—uncreated and without beginning or end; there is no such thing as “immaterial matter,” and all Spirit is Matter, but it is more refined. Consequently, this affirms eternal Pluralism, more than one ultimate principle, the reality of nature, and the Primacy of Existence.