Joseph Smith’s Universalism

[Anonymous]

I have not finished The God Who Weeps, so the linked articles maybe fully discussed in it’s pages and I haven’t arrived at it yet, but yesterday I was having a “why did I like Joseph so much day”. It really bothered me how much angst I carry around especially in light of him. When I came home I googled Joseph Smith Universalism, just to see what existed on the topic, especially since we never paint him that way in church. I was surprised by the response. I thought I’d share 2 articles with you, my ward family, I found them enlightening.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-context/8-universalism-and-revelations-joseph-smith

http://www.universalist-herald.net/1Hist.html

[Anonymous]

Thanks! …and I appreciate your introspective exercise! :clap: :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

The universalism that developed over time is one of my favorite aspects of Mormon theology.

Thanks for the links.

[Anonymous]

Can I get clarity on what we mean by universalism?

The general sense of universalism presented by the church seems to be that, yes all mankind is saved, but to different fixed kingdoms. I’m with Givens on progression between kingdoms as to me being separated from family for eternity,even in a telestial paradise state, sounds like hell.

These 2 readings of universalism are fundamentally different. Are we talking past each other when we discuss this question at church?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Are we talking past each other when we discuss this question at church?

Yes.

I wish everyone could see the light and believe exactly what I believe , but we talk past each other in church to the extent that we see things differently – anything. It’s the nature of communal life, and accepting it is a pillar of peace.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Ray – yes – we as an organization have varied definitions of Universalism. In addition the two articles have different intents of their own. The first one is the author’s personal understanding of Joseph’s influence spiritually and how his Universalism upbringing might have prepared him for his work in restoring or proceeding with LDS doctrines and direction.

The second article is from a non-LDS theology professor, his view point is presenting the tie in to LDS-ness with a greater emphasis on Universalism.

When I posted them I knew they were ships passing in the night, I also selected them for that very reason, though Joseph’s Universalism connection is rarely used in the church, it is whispered in the text of our theology. Because it is whispered and not solidified I see it as a great opportunity to let my heart decide which version I prefer. I pick the God in who believes in our best nature every time. I often answer in class that “we don’t know when the judgement day is.” When I say it I mean that each of us may have a separate and distinct judgement day. This allows Heavenly Processes to work with each of us as absolutely long as possible. Everyone else who hears me, has their own interpretation, and I would guess most of them see a day when the Royal bell will ring, we will all sit down and the life video’s and final judgement will begin. And then we will be sent off in chains or glory to our assigned end. Much like the art work that covers the Cathedral at Notre Dame.

http://rosslangager.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/img_0719.jpg

[Anonymous]

I agree fully with what you say Ray but was interested in what our definition of universalism was in the context of this post. You mention Josephs growing development of the concept. How fluid was his definition and how far did he take it? I’m interested as this has become a topic of conversation in my family recently. Eternal progression for all feels right and underpins a much more merciful God. Was this Joseph’s conclusion?

[Anonymous]

To give a sketchy summary, the earliest days of the Church didn’t have a universalist slant. It was very much a classic Protestant perspective at first – a “we are saved, while you are damned” sort of outlook. That evolved over time – and I love the fact that it evolved, since that tells me it’s okay within our theological framework for other things to evolve, also.

By the time the temple endowment was solidified to include ordinances for the dead, there was an emerging universalism – but the strains of exclusivity still existed. Eventually, we got to the point where, at least in theory, every person who has ever lived on earth potentially can be exalted, depending primarily on how “valiantly” they lived (or, more accurately, tried to live) according to their best understanding and were willing to repent (try to change to the best of their ability). We now have a way to craft a truly Mormon universalism in the future that was unimaginable at the time the Church was formally established.

Our “orthodox” theology has changed over time in this regard, which is something many members don’t realize because they haven’t thought about it or been presented with it in a way that they can understand and accept. That alone (changing orthodoxy) is important to me, since it says that my current heterodoxy someday might be the new orthodoxy. It might not (for various reasons), but it might – and that possibility is important to me.

For example, I see a HUGE theological shift in the realm of universalism with the Church’s latest stance on homosexuality. I hope it continues to evolve even more with regard to that issue, but I think the members who understand the recent change can envision homosexual individuals being eligible for exaltation in a way that wasn’t possible with the previous Church stance. Again, my own view still is heterodox when it comes to homosexuality, but the Church’s current stance is much closer to mine than the previous one was – and it is much more “universalist” than it was previously. It’s not fully universalist yet, but it’s moving in that direction – and the theological framework we have can accommodate a fully universalist inclusion of homosexuals, imo. I believe we collectively just need to see and accept the framework fully to accomplish that universalism.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray for the thoughtful summary. My thoughts were on another tangent when I first read this thread but this widens the scope. I’m in complete agreement. We do seem as an organisation to be entering an age of greater compassion and understanding, if not yet acceptance, of those who in the past have been marginalised or vilified. I’ve said this before in relation to those who doubt but agree it applies to the subject of same sex attraction.

This sentiment Isn’t universal in the church yet but some elements at the top are changing.

I agree that theology is key. For many, change will flow when there is a theological framework on which they can legitimately pin these changes. For me that is Joseph’s greatest legacy. He thought big and and he thought expansive. He pulled in ideas from where ever he found them and never stopped tweaking and evolving them.

With some of the individuals involved with the Neal A Maxwell institute (Miller especially) we seem to be entering an age of really exploring where, theologically speaking, we can go as a church.

[Author]

Posts