FABULOUS CONCEPTIONS - Godbeite Transcription and Commentary

Notwithstanding the great time commitment needed to pull it off, this will hopefully be the first in a series of blog posts on the Godbeites, a schismatic Mormon organization active around the 1870s in Utah that split from orthodox Brighamitism out of a commitment to liberalism, progressivism, free thought, and antiauthoritarianism; who established several liberal institutions - including the newspaper that became the Salt Lake Tribune - but fizzled out after only a few decades. As Reform Mormons, a present group with a very similar set of foundational principles, many of us feel a strong kinship with these early heretics, and as such, my friend Evan Sharley and I have recently begun researching them in depth, beginning by reading through their writings printed in their official publications. So far, we have found many writings that largely resonate with us, even as we find many others, however intended with noble spirit, grossly miss the mark. Because of the great principles contained in these writings together with my not infrequent objections, I have decided to present a number of their writings here on this blog accompanied by my own Reform Mormon commentary, and Evan has undertaken a similar endeavor on her blog https://gileriodekel.com/. 

Furthermore, as the Deseret Alphabet has been a major interest of mine for many years, as one of the alphabet’s chief designers George D. Watt joined the Godbeite Movement, as the advent of the Godbeites coincided with the publication of the only 19th century Deseret Alphabet books, including the Book of Mormon, and as John H. Jenkins, the person most responsible for the modern proliferation of Deseret, recently passed away, I have also decided to present the writings and my commentary in both Latin as well as Deseret - specifically, my own commentary will be rendered according to my own accent and style, while the Godbeite texts will be according to the accent and style illustrated in the contemporary Deseret Alphabet books.

𐐗𐑋𐐹𐐰𐑌𐐷𐑌 𐐪𐑉𐐼𐐮𐐿𐑊 𐐮𐑌 𐐔𐐯𐑆𐐯𐑉𐐯𐐻:

As found in the Mormon Tribune on March 26th, 1870

FABULOUS CONCEPTIONS:

THE ORIGIN OF LUCIFER AND THE ORIGIN ON RACES.

By Joseph Salisbury

We have arrived at a period in our history as a church as well as in the history of the world when necessity compels us to test by the light of reason and by the power of intellect every doctrine that composes the basework of our faith. More particularly does this duty devolve on us who have been excommunicated from the Mormon orthodoxy for the crime of heresy. If we are heretics it is quite time our judgments were informed of the fact, for upon a just decision of this question we stand or fall religiously. As an individual I am free to confess there are many doctrines taught and accepted as true by the highest ecclesiastical authority in the orthodox church that I most conscientiously believe to be incorrect. Among others is the one that teaches the existence of a being purely malignant and possessed of almost infinite power. I argue not to oppose but, if possible, to demonstrate facts, to approximate nearer pure and unadulterated truth, realizing that nothing short of that will develop and prepare our minds for an association with those who dwell in the higher spheres of immortal life. The unbounded confidence I have in this people, whether orthodox or heterodox, for honesty of purpose, leads me to the belief that they dare look truth in the face even should the facts destroy their most cherished ideas. As this is a subject which has been advocated by the press as well as from the platform, and one with which all are familiar, I feel myself secure from intruding on unbroken ground.

In order to elucidate this subject it will be necessary to probe its foundation and see what grounds there are for supposing such a doctrne [sic] to be correct. Mormon theology asserts that the being before referred to (whom we will hereafter call Lucifer), originated in heaven, that he was the second begotten of the Father and among the innumerable progeny of Adam, our “Father and God,” inferior to none in wisdom and power but Jesus Christ, who was also his senior by birth. At a council of the Gods convened to decide upon the propriety of creating this planet, the subject of man's redemption was mooted, for it was then known that “man would fall,”–hence the question was put, who should redeem the race? Lucifer was ambitious to save every one, “that not one soul should be lost;” but as he was not the “heir,” and his doctrine altogether too universalian, we are told he was rejected. Being thus balked in his purpose, he rebelled and was backed by a third part of the “heavenly hosts” who, under their intrepid leader, made war on the other two thirds; but they were defeated and subsequently cast out from their paradiasical [sic] abode. According to the same theology, in process of time the earth was created, and Adam, who was no less a personage than our “Father and God” and the father of Lucifer also, came down with Eve, one of his wives, and dwelt in the Garden of Eden, where his rebellious son soon discovered him and again renewed attack by inducing Mother Eve–through the agency of a serpent–to eat the forbidden fruit. She gave it to Adam, also, and he “did eat.” Thus was “God our Father” subdued and his nature reduced from immortality. He became a being subject to all the ills incidental to humanity, even to death itself, by the cunning stratagem of Lucifer His son and “our preexistent brother.”

I will admit the whole story for the sake of investigation. To my mind it appears incompatible with the wisdom that would necessarily be displayed in a council of the heavenly powers, to propound the question, “Who will go and redeem the world?” when the sequel proves beyond doubt that they understood it to be the duty of Jesus Christ to work “man’s redemption” by right of heirship. Is it possible to conceive of one or of any number of beings having power to produce discord, to destroy the equilibrium of heaven's society, to create chaos and inaugurate rebellion against the Gods? Again, can it be true that a fallen angel, “a devil,” has power to tempt and deceive a God and destroy his immortality? If so then is Lucifer infinite indeed. It may be argued, however, that “the man was not deceived but the woman.” If such was the case the result was the same. The fact still stares us in the face, that, if Adam ever was immortal, he was subsequently mortal, for he died. It is also stated in orthodox theology that the spirit of Adam was subject to the power of the “devil,” by whom he had been led captive, and in its dark, dreary, prison-house it had to remain until Jesus should come in the meridian of time and bring about the resurrection of the dead. But Lucifer, be it remembered, was already master of the situation. He had destroyed a God and held his spirit in captivity and, as he is said to have been the sole possessor of the keys of death and hell, he must have been the instigator of the death of Christ. If he could hold the spirit of God the Father bound and destroy the body of Jesus, what reason is there to suppose that he could not hold the spirit of Jesus bound also, for he had not yet been exalted to the Godhead in the realms of immortal existence? Granting that Adam is all that our friends claim him to be, is it not unreasonable to suppose that the Father was dependent on the Son, the greater on the lesser, for life and being in a resurrected state?

This theory is purely Mormon and not Mosaic, but, as Mormon Elders have made use of the writings of Moses and the lesser prophets to try to substantiate their position, I will briefly refer to them, merely to show that no reference was ever made to a rebellion in heaven–the celestial abode of man, or to a fallen angel by the inspired writers of the first four thousand years.

As has been before remarked, Mormon theology asserts that Lucifer, through the agency of a serpent, deceived Mother Eve. If such was the case it is a remarkable fact that neither the “Lord God” nor Moses charged such a being with the crime–as can be seen by reference to the third chapter of Genesis. The chapter opens with a dialogue between the woman (Eve) and “the serpent,” relative to the consequences that would result from partaking of the fruit of the tree that stood in the midst of the garden. And when Eve “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat." Does not this show most conclusively that the power which tempted and deceived Eve was her own lustful desire–the subtle, plausible eloquence of her own heart–which the story illustrates by the character of a snake? As the snake tribe are more subtle to any other beast so also are the reasonings of human passion more deceptive than anything else with which the race has to contend.

Leaving this to be as it may, and even supposing the story to be true as it reads, what sin did the woman commit by partaking of the fruit of that or any other tree? It was surely no violation of law on her part, from the fact that the “Lord God” commanded the man and not the woman, saying, “Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it”–and that, too, before Eve was manufactured from the “rib bone of Adam." Again, if “the serpent” was not used figuratively it remains to be proven that this species of animals when first created perambulated on their tail ends, for punishment inflicted was that they should henceforth go on their belly. Is it not absurd to suppose that God would punish a reptile, who at most could have been but the involuntary agent of a higher intelligence, while he would pass by the principal in the fraud without even rebuke or censure?

I believe Isaiah to be the only Scripture writer that ever used the term “Lucifer,” which can be found in his fourteenth chapter. This chapter has been ingeniously used by some to bolster up the pet theory of the existence of a personal devil. The prophet says, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer son of the morning! how art thou cast down to the ground, (earth) which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." In this quotation we not only discover the Scriptural origin of the name “Lucifer” but the very design and purpose which our orthodox friends affirm prompted a supposed being of that name to inaugurate rebellion in heaven. By referring to the context it will be seen that no reference whatever is made to heaven, the abode of immortal beings, but that special and direct reference is made to the KING OF BABYLON who had risen to the highest pinnacle of political eminence. He was the great absolute monarch of the world; his fiat struck terror into the hearts of kings as well as their subjects; he ruled with the iron hand of tyranny and his ambition knew no bounds; he bade defiance to the gods of nations because he was their creator. Hence the language of his heart was supposed to have been “I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne (or the throne of Babylon) above the stars of God”–and he might have added, “I will sway the sceptre of universal empire over God and man.”

I will pay but a passing notice to the war in heaven spoken of by the Revelator St. John, as he had been previously informed that he was to be shown things that “should be hereafter” and not those things that had already transpired: hence, whatever event might have occurred in celestial spheres thousands of years anterior to his day, he had no reference to such in his writings, which are a symbolical, prophetic history of political Rome and Christianity.

As to the reference to the Devil in Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon’s vision, I will say that the revelations to all prophets of necessity have had to be more or less adapted to the traditions of their times, and to the conditions of society, as much new truth being developed at one time as the people can receive. It has always been the policy of the heavens not to make violent jumps in changing the foundations of religious faith, as thereby they would destroy all faith. Joseph nor his people at that time could conceive of evil except as owing to a devil. Besides the story of the casting of the Devil–or the evil–out of heaven was true in a higher sense.

Good and evil have existed and they will ever exist cotemporary [sic] with each other so long as there is a soul to be developed from man’s dual nature. Indeed, both are but the outgrowths of the human and divine qualities inherent in him. If he manifests more evil than good in his course of life, the sin perhaps is more chargeable to his ancestry and to his early surroundings in life than to himself. In the general routine of things man is more or less but the reflex of his progenitors. There are, however, special exceptions to this rule.If there is such a being as “Lucifer”–a God of evil, backed up by one hundred thousand million spirits, whose object is said to be identical with his own, besides the innumerable hosts of converts which he is supposed to have made upon the earth and who are at the present time, according to this theory, his special agents in the spirit-life–is it not strange that he does not give direct and distinct revelations to those whose very natures tend to evil rather than good? The very lack of revelation and organization on his part shows that if he exists at all he has but little sagacity. I am aware that our orthodox church recognizes the organizations of sectarianism as having been effected through his agency for the accomplishment of his purposes–there are, say they, but two churches, “the church of God,” (Mormonism), and the church of the Devil, (Sectarianism)–yet nothing can be more absurd than such a supposition, from the fact that the tendency of the entire religious sectarian world is to redeem the race from that condition alone compatible with the development of the qualities essential in a disciple of his Satanic Majesty. 

Man in his depraved condition receives not revelation from any source, but, when he is taken by the hand of some kind friend and lifted out of his filthy state and brought en rapport with loftier sentiments, his spiritual (and perhaps an inspirational) nature soon becomes developed, and in such a condition of mind he is made the recipient of impressions, revelations, visions, dreams, etc. It is useless for any to assert that revelations, unless they come through a certain person or persons are from the devil, “Lucifer” when the truth stands out boldly declaring that all revelations, however low the phase, however nonsensical in phraseology, tend rather to elevate than to debase. The very fact of revelations coming from a supernatural sphere immediately turns a man’s mind heavenward; his thoughts are instantaneously transported from earth-life to the investigation of the philosophy of that which lies beyond; he lives thereafter in spiritualities and not in debauchery. Revelation, then, of any kind, instead of being of the “devil,” turns the mind in an entirely opposite direction to that which is supposed by the advocates of this devil-deity to be in harmony with the sentiments and purposes of Lucifer son of the morning.

The origin of races was cotemporary [sic] with the origin of the devil, according to the legendary history of orthodox Mormons. The story runs, that when the rebellion was first inaugurated in heaven there was doubtless a vast number over and above one-third of the spiritual host who took part with the arch-traitor, but who, when the line of demarcation was drawn, deserted his ranks and went over to the side of the archangel Michael, while another class of spirits remained neutral during the whole time of conflict; hence they were “ignoble.” To punish these fearful beings for their cowardice it was necessary that Cain should kill his brother in order to create a pretext to curse him with a “black skin and thick lips,” that in this degraded condition he might propagate bodies through which to send the neutral spirits to work out their probation on the earth. We are informed by certain Mormon theorists that others, who had taken part in the fight on the side of Lucifer, but who subsequently rejoined Michael’s armies, were to be punished in earth-life, according to the enormity of their crimes, in various ways, such as being born halt, lame, blind, etc. To substantiate this theory a very suitable passage of scripture is cited, “Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This, of course, argues the believer in this doctrine, shows plainly that it was possible for a man to sin prior to birth. To my mind it simply proves how ignorant the interrogator must have been of the laws of nature. The great teacher eclipsed him by the philosophical answer, “Neither this man nor his parents, but that the power of God might be made manifest.” As there are myriads of human beings of various hues between the sable African and the white race, it would be quite a valuable piece of information to the world at large, but more especially to those of the Van Humboldt type of mind, to know what distant relative the founder of each distinct race murdered, to merit his peculiar type of skin. If I may be allowed to guess, I should say it must have been a grandfather of at least ten generations, for some of the colors approximate so near the white that it is hard to draw the distinctive line.

These conceptions are novel only from the fact of their recent development. Were such not the case they would fail to attract any notice, much less criticism, in this age of advanced thought. The theory of an evil God is prehistoric; it was brought forth by the crude conceptions of ignorance, cradled in superstition, and matured by christianity; it was a myth created, it existed as tradition and it is fast passing out of its earth-life to live in history as one of the absurd dogmas of ancient barbarisms.

The first Godbeite article I will present and review is “Fabulous Conceptions: the Origin of Lucifer and the Origin of Race” by Joseph Salisbury, which presents and then argues against the orthodox Brighamite theology surrounding Satan and the War in Heaven, including racial theology - specifically, that Satan as “a being purely malignant and possessed of almost infinite power” does not exist, that the true cause of evil is the “reasonings of human passion” and “human qualities inherent” in humanity, and that it is ridiculous to believe that anyone would be punished for sins committed before they were born, especially if that “punishment” be a dark skin color, all argued from a foundation steeped within Mormonism. Each of these points I agree with and marvel that any Mormon group in 19th century Utah could have been so bold in defending them, but I find several of the supporting arguments and assumptions either weak or altogether false, which I will now explain in detail.

One of Mr. Salisbury’s arguments against a personal devil is that if such a being existed, we would expect to see 1) many revelations stemming from him, and 2) organizations led with him at the head. This seems correct to me. However, as he sees it, the Devil could not possibly be the author of any revelations, for “all revelations, however low the phase, however nonsensical in phraseology, tend rather to elevate rather than to debase”, nor any organizations, for the Christian churches that orthodox Brighamites deride as Sectarian churches of the Devil actually tend “to redeem the race from that condition alone compatible with the development of the qualities essential in a disciple of his Satanic Majesty.” While I again agree with the conclusions for reasons I will explain shortly, I find both examples lacking.

First is the issue of works that inspire evil while claiming to be revelation. While Mr. Salisbury finds that such do not exist, at least in the long run, I am aware of numerous counter examples. Considering the vast repertoire of revelations considered as such by different flavors of Mormons, I view many as “tend[ing]... to debase” in at least equal measure if not far beyond elevation, including the racial teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere, patriarchal polygamy in the Doctrine and Covenants, James Strang’s revelatory self-aggrandizement, Biblical condonement of slavery - including as the ideal relationship between God and Humanity - or the authoritarian revelations of the Jeffs, which have quite infamously led to most horrific abuse of children. What’s more, the Godbeites should agree with me - do they really believe that the revelations of Brother Brigham that they continuously fight against “tend rather to elevate than to debase”?

By way of counter argument, perhaps I am wrong, and these revelations do elevate in the long term if not in the short (either by inspiration to fight against, or to provide scaffolding for later improvements) - after all, the Godbeites and Reform Mormons had to come from somewhere - or perhaps these are but sad exceptions. However, I am not convinced by this line of reasoning. The former, because, while groups and individuals can certainly take inspiration from earlier, harmful revelations for nobler purposes using the mechanisms I mentioned - I and my community do this regularly, even - I do not see this as the natural tendency of revelation, for I have seen just as many examples of the same revelations used for manipulation and harm. In fact, it could well be argued that the harmful direction, rather than an exception, makes up the majority of cases, especially among those with significant power. In general, I see the process of revelation and the interpretation thereof as ultimately neutral: revelations of any general sort of tendency - good, bad, or in between - can be interpreted for any purpose, and no direction is any more or less natural than any other, but instead we as spiritual people must choose which to follow.

Directly related to this is the issue of Christian organizations tending to “redeem the race.” By the time this article was published in 1870, various Christian groups, either narrowly in the sense of church organizations or broadly in the sense of having Christian values, had already been involved with or responsible for countless acts of evil, for example, imperialism, genocide, generational race-based chattel slavery - hardly anything redemptory. And again, as in the last section, this was the rule rather than the exception. And while I can understand tailoring arguments to directly respond to Brighamite claims, it also strikes me as weak that their only true argument here is to defend Christian organizations - perhaps another manifestation of their bias in favor of white christians.

But as I have alluded to earlier, I do largely agree with the Godbeites, in that I find no compelling reason to believe in a purely evil deity literally hell-bent on overthrowing god and destroying humanity, that evil can be much more harmoniously explained by human passion, that “The Devil” can be usefully seen as a metaphor for evil present in society, and that the “Lucifer” of Isaiah was merely the king of Babylon. My conception of Satan is further colored by the understanding in Biblical scholarship that “Satan” was originally thought of as a member of the divine council playing an adversarial role to further the will of the Gods, which may be good or evil because my conception of Gods is not omnibenevolent. My views of God and revelation also differ slightly in that I see both concepts as reflections of the people working through them - as such, I agree that there are no organizations or revelations inspired by the Devil (except for those who claim such), because evil-working revelations can be very easily accounted for by harmful views of God without resorting to an imagined independent Satan.

So far, my impression of Godbeitism is that I agree with them often, and even when I disagree, I still agree at least in part - sometimes I will agree with their premises and not the conclusions, and other times I will agree with their conclusions but not the premises. It seems that this may stem from an incomplete deconstruction of Brighamite dogma, as many of their arguments expertly show the internal contradictions of Brighamitism but then fail to break down the core assumptions. In particular, though they admit traditional ideas and stories often have little relationship to truth, they still believe themselves and their myths to be objectively correct when they should know better - but perhaps I give my ability to recognize consistent theology too much credit

Finally, to my great delight, I’ve found that the process of reading, engaging, and disagreeing with this and other Godbeite texts while working on this project is making me proud to be a Mormon again - I really feel as if I am actively contributing to the Mormon tradition in a way that I haven’t been for some time. I can’t wait to do this again!