A Monograph Commemorating His Bicentennial Birthday

Neil J Flinders
Brigham Young University
Joseph Smith Academy
Nauvoo, Illinois
2005

---

This essay was written for all those who might find interest in exploring the relationship between American education and Joseph Smith the American Prophet. It is addressed to anyone who loves education and finds interest in the thoughts and writings of Joseph Smith, as well as to

those who love Joseph Smith and also find interest in the theory and practice of education. My general observations are expressed in the text; more detailed connections to various aspects of

Joseph Smith’s ideas can be found in the footnotes and their references. As the reader may

recognize, the breadth and depth of these two topics far exceed adequate treatment in a limited document by a single author. But what can be accomplished, hopefully, is to present enough of

the story to demonstrate value in considering Joseph Smith as an educator worthy of critical

study. The footnotes will signal to the serious reader, the pervasive and extended nature of this subject matter. I begin with a brief commentary on two topics— (a) education and (b) Joseph

Smith Jr., the person. It is vital to understand both the definition of education used in this

document, and to sense the way this man’s reputation spread throughout the world in such a rapid and remarkable manner. This phenomenon remains a mystery yet to be fully explained.

I

Joseph Smith Jr., the American prophet, and education are a natural fit. Like a hand in a glove, the two combined become an instrument of extraordinary potential. Serious students of either education or Joseph Smith will recognize both subjects are much discussed, but seldom comprehended. I readily acknowledge these topics are challenging, but that seems to be a common ailment in the human condition. Life itself is challenging, but life is also larger than its challenges. Like all children, each of us is worth far more than we realize and we realize far less than we ought to—as we play out our days in this sandbox of mortality. So, with the obvious limitations clearly in mind, I will try to sharpen and deepen our understanding of Joseph Smith as an educator. Whatever else Joseph Smith might have been, he was first and foremost an educator—a leader-like stewardship he shouldered with vigor and enjoyment, clothed in the mantle of prophet, seer, and revelator. This fact alone tends to set him apart.

What is Education?

First, a word about my view of education: Studying the history, philosophy, and definition of education is something like studying the weather. It is certainly important, but seldom understood and hardly predictable. There are many theories why this is so; far more than can be addressed in a simple essay. What I will say, with some degree of confidence, is that education in its broadest sense is the acquisition and appropriate application of the truth. This is the sense in which I use the term. Further, it seems self evident that learning and teaching are universal attributes. Professional educators have no corner on this market. Everyone is a learner and everyone is a teacher. Our social world is shaped and driven by how each person packages, delivers, and makes use of these functions. It is this universal personal agency that causes most of the fuss and a lot of the furor in our lives—at home, at work, and at play. Obtaining, organizing, and applying information or knowledge seems to be the basic function of human life. When this complex process ceases, what is left? Education has to be a core consideration in every person’s life. This was the platform on which Joseph Smith based his life.

Who Was Joseph? What Have Others Said About Him?

Second, a brief comment regarding Joseph Smith Jr. the person. His name is well-known to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; others may be more or less familiar with the man and his mission. In terms of notoriety, however, his name is extraordinary; it pervades every continent. Joseph Smith Jr. is a man whose name is spoken in tones of both good and evil throughout the world. The number and the variation of these descriptions are exceptional and informative. There is a sizable library of books, pamphlets, and articles written about him; perhaps as many, or more, than any other American. Consider the range in perception of just five selected excerpts from recorded observations by his contemporaries. Then, ponder the question: Why did this young man from such obscure origins, who lived just thirty-eight years, evoke such an immediate and widespread interest—a fascination that continues to expand with time? The answer to this question could illuminate the title of this presentation and help frame the relationship between education and Joseph Smith, the person.

Selection One. Thomas Hamilton, a writer from England visited America in 1831. He published a travelogue entitled: Men and Manners in America (1833). Mr. Hamilton never personally met Joseph Smith but willingly expressed his opinion as if he had. He relates his own experience of traveling toward the Ohio frontier in the early 1830s. He describes the village of Canandaigua at the edge of a beautiful lake, viewing Niagara Falls where the eccentric Sam Patch jumped 125 ft. to his death from a rock below the Horseshoe in 1829, and notes in detail the variety of human traffic he encountered while moving along the Erie Canal.

He writes, “We passed also several parties of . . . Mormonites, going to a settlement established by their founder, in Ohio.” Hamilton acknowledged he had never heard of this sect before, but willingly passed on considerable imaginative, here-say commentary such as,

I gleaned the following particulars from one of [my fellow] passengers. A bankrupt storekeeper, whose name I think was Smith, had an extraordinary dream. It directed him to go alone to a particular spot . . . where he was to dig to a certain depth. This dream was of course treated as a mere delusion, and, as is usual in such cases, was thrice repeated . . . Having dug to the requisite depth . . . he found a book with golden clasps and cover, and a pair of elegantly mounted spectacles . . . astonishing magnifiers . . . . Smith had some difficulty in undoing the clasps of this precious volume, but on opening it, though his eyes were good, it appeared to contain nothing but blank paper. It then occurred to him to fit on his spectacles, when, lo! The whole volume was filled with certain figures and pothooks to him unintelligible. Delighted with his good fortune, Smith trudged home with the volume in his pocket and the spectacles on his nose, happy as a bibliomaniac . . . lucky enough to purchase a rare [document] dog cheap from an ignorant proprietor.

In the same vein Mr. Hamilton continues his explanation of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, which he attributed to “a converted Rabbi, who flourished in the days of our Saviour . . . that continues to puzzle theologians” (pp. 310-313). This is one view of Joseph from the perspective of a rather flippant wayfaring soul intent on entertaining his readers.

Selection Two. A second, more serious view of Joseph Smith appears in the Dublin University Magazine of March 1843. This article from a venerated Old World academic institution is entitled, “Mormonism; or, New Mohammedanism in England and America.” The treatise begins,

We are accustomed to boast of the intelligence of the nineteenth century. . . . Mormonism is a bitter reply to our self-laudation; . . . it exhibits to us a convicted swindler received as a prophet by thousands in both hemispheres—a literary forgery so thoroughly absurd . . . yet recognized as revelation, and placed on the same level of authority as the Bible itself. . . . Hundreds of our countrymen annually quit their homes to join the ranks of the impostor in the wilds of Illinois. . . . We have conversed with these deluded men; on all subjects, save religion, we have found them shrewd, clever, and well-informed; but, when reference was made to Mormonism, they at once became insensible to reason and argument; neither clergymen nor layman could turn them from their error, or convince them of the absurdity of their proceedings.” p. 283.

Consider the overt implication of these two accounts. They demonstrate that in both hemispheres, less than 20 years after he became known beyond his hometown village, people in very common walks of life as well as highly esteemed social circles, felt compelled to say something about Joseph Smith—whether they had met him in person or not. And this was in a day when communication was very slow, sometimes dangerous, and often difficult and expensive.

Selection Three. A third observer, Samuel A. Prior, a Methodist minister, visited Nauvoo, Illinois in 1843. Reverend Prior writes that he “left home with no very favourable opinions of the Latter-day Saints,” thinking of them “as being of quite another race from the rest of mankind and holding no affinity to the human family.” He speaks of his disappointment when he arrived in Nauvoo in 1843. Instead of finding a few “miserable log cabins and mud hovels,” as he expected, he was

surprised to see one of the most romantic places that I had visited in the west. . . . I heard not an oath in the place, I saw not a gloomy countenance; all were cheerful, polite, and industrious. I conversed with many leading men—found them social and well-informed, hospitable, and generous. ¹

Nowhere, reported Reverend Prior, did he find evidence of the deprecation and villainy he had heard applied so often to this people.

Selection Four. A fourth witness was Josiah Quincy, a well-educated attorney from Massachusetts, who served as the mayor of Boston (1845-1848). Mr. Quincy, in company with Charles Frances Adams, made an unintended visit to Nauvoo, Illinois in May of 1844. Josiah was impressed with what he saw and marveled that a frontier city of 15,000 or more, could be built in less than half a decade. The location and setting was striking; a mile long Main Street that began and ended on the same river—a fact as unique as the city’s name. These two visitors saw a university in the making, a large imposing temple under construction, and some 2,500 log, frame, and brick buildings on the edge of a wilderness. Mr. Quincy said he felt the energy of a peculiar people. The site and the circumstances amazed this politician, a man very familiar with America in her infant state. But, more than anything else, he was struck by the founder of this unusual enterprise. As viewed by Josiah Quincy, Joseph Smith was an admirable mystery.

Four decades later, after due reflection, this prominent legislator was still inclined to write: “Joseph Smith . . . a rare being” has exerted a “wonderful influence” and notwithstanding unsavory criticisms, he is a “phenomenon to be explained.” The mayor went on to project that the day may come when Joseph Smith, the American Prophet, could be recognized as the historical figure of the nineteenth century that “exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen.” Mr. Quincy asserted that “the most vital questions Americans are asking each other today have to do with this man and what he has left us . . . [and admitted that] a generation other than mine must deal with these questions. Burning questions they are.” Mr. Quincy noted that Joseph Smith “talked from a strong mind utterly unenlightened by the teachings of history.” Though not always complimentary of the Mormons, Josiah was careful to state, “I have no theory to advance respecting this extraordinary man.” (Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past: From the Leaves of Old Journals (pp. 376-400).

Selection Five. Finally, an observation from a man who, in June of 1844, shared the tiny room in Carthage Jail where Joseph and his brother Hyrum were murdered by an angry mob. John Taylor testified of the victims’ innocence and proclaimed: “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.” (The Doctrine and Covenants 135:3)

So, here we have a range of views—the ridiculous to the sublime. At one end Joseph is disparaged and on the other he is eulogized. It is the making of an enigma; a puzzle caused by an inscrutable and mysterious personality. Why is Joseph not just summarily dismissed by his peers? Why, after 200 years, is America’s Library of Congress now co-sponsoring a symposium in honor of his bicentennial birth? These are among numerous questions that have yet to be adequately resolved in the minds of many people. Perhaps these and other questions, if we had appropriate answers, could shed some light on this quandary. Consider just these six selected from an extended parade of legitimate queries:

Why did this young, unschooled, energetic, frontier boy, who grew to be such a charismatic man, attract so much positive and negative attention?

Why did his notoriety spread world-wide in less than two decades?

What did he do or say that impacted so many individuals so deeply?

Why did the established social order react so violently toward him?

Why did the Church he founded evolve from a small persecuted band to a major religious influence in the United States and the world?

What did Joseph Smith learn and teach that has had such a powerful impact?

This list of questions could be expanded many times over. My immediate interest, however, is the central element of the last question. Does what Joseph Smith learned and taught qualify him to be considered America’s Greatest Educator? In response, I propose that Joseph be viewed as a Minister of Education and let his record speak to the question. No other educational title seems to better describe his mission.

II

Joseph Smith as a Minister of Education

Joseph Smith fits well the definition traditionally applied in many lands to Ministers of Education. Socially, a minister is one who attends to the needs and wants of others. He looks, sees, and then does what is necessary, considering available resources, to respond to the welfare of those whom he is appointed to serve. Legally, in the historical sense, a minister is a person responsible to the King who appoints him. He is the highest officer over the stewardship bestowed upon him; he represents the Sovereign and is invested with the authority to implement the benefits of his ministry among the people.

Joseph Smith certainly fits both the social and legal descriptions of a Minister of Education. His appointment came from a Heavenly King.² He worked with the resources at hand and carefully bestowed them for the benefit of the people he served. His entire life was devoted to learning, teaching, ministering, and organizing others to do the same. He did what he wanted others to do. He was what he wanted others to become. He never compromised his mission or violated his office.

As a minister of education, Joseph Smith can be defined and ranked both in terms of (1) the propositions he espoused, and (2) the ongoing consequences of what he initiated. These matters may be compared to a variety of elements associated with educational endeavors in human society. This task is a little spongy because education is such an amorphous subject; it is real but it has no definite form. People view education in a wide variety of ways. There are remarkable degrees of difference. Nevertheless, some common categories exist. Among these, would be:

Every family, church, and school has its own version of these elements. But the extent to which they become formal and explicit varies dramatically. Nevertheless, these are among the fundamental criteria by which one can assess an educator and his or her educational efforts. It is with these elements in mind that I make a few cursory comparisons. A book or several books would be required to treat all the relevant topics as they might apply to Joseph Smith. What follows is only a snapshot of Joseph Smith as a minister of education; it is a brief description of his ideas and performance compared to some other beliefs and practices. The contrasts are rather stark, but they help illustrate the uniqueness of Joseph’s educational thought.

In order to appreciate the significance of these contrasts, it is necessary to recognize two or three of the most fundamental assumptions driving educational thought in western society—particularly as they are manifest in America. Several basic educational squabbles have been etched on the American scene since the birth of Joseph Smith. They each emerged from serious questions about what is real, who should be in charge, and why people act like they do. Joseph had considerable to say about such notions. His views were often at variance with what was commonly accepted at the time, and they remain so today—notwithstanding how the popular options change from time to time. His insights are unique and sometimes disturbing to the status quo. To some people they may appear uncomfortable, if not heretical; for others they can be considered standards for evaluation, foundational elements on which to build.

III

Authority

At the very root of all educational processes lies the question of authority. When authority raises its head all other issues tend to pale into insignificance. The presence and acceptance of power is essential to the longevity of any educational effort. The modern world cites a variety of “authorities” for its educational programs: the individual, the family, a particular group, the state, society at large, a governing person—king, ruler, and magistrate have all been mentioned. The person or group that fashions the critical decisions in an educational endeavor is central to nearly all the other functions that could or do occur. Authority is the fuel that sustains the function of education in human society. Where there is no authority there can be no formal, definitive education—there can only be confusion and chaos.

Western culture can be viewed as generating four general responses to the question of authority. These perspectives are like platforms upon which people have stood to launch their respective programs and proclaim the reasons for pursuing education the way they do. The basic assumptions people make regarding education are not in agreement. Education in America has been and still is shaped by four rather distinct approaches. Each of these views can be easily envisioned in principle by considering two basic axes of concern.

The first axis contrasts the view that there is a supernatural and a natural dimension to reality, with the notion that there is only a natural domain and nothing else. In other words, there are people who believe the universe is composed of two building blocks—spirit stuff and physical stuff—to put it bluntly. Then, there are people who believe there is no spirit stuff, only physical stuff. The result is somewhat like the two ends of a teeter-totter, there is a continuum along which degrees of differences have been strongly expressed. But at center point the issue shifts, the basic assumption changes, and the difference is exclusive.

Supernatural No Supernatural

and a _________________________________________ only a

Natural Domain Natural Domain

Second, there is another axis of belief that views the individual as the primary authority in educational matters, versus the notion that the society or the group is the primary source of authority in these endeavors.

Individual ___________________________________________ Society

When these two axes are diagramed to intersect at the center, one vertical and the other horizontal, four quadrants—directions or domains—for the development of contrasting educational programs emerge. These quadrants of belief in differing assumptions drive people in different directions. It doesn’t require a great deal of probing to discover a person’s preferences. Although these mutually exclusive domains vary by degree within each quadrant, the views between the quadrants are markedly different. They do drive people in different directions. Where a person stands on these matters largely determines what type of educator he or she will endeavor to be.

It makes a difference if a person believes there is a supernatural domain or there isn’t. It makes a difference who one believes authorizes and is fundamentally in charge of education—the individual or the society—regardless of whether that society is a church or a secular institution. Proponents and opponents to these differing views have been very active in the history of American education, as well as in other nations.³Notwithstanding a considerable variety of programs may appear in each of the quadrants, the basic premises are easy to discern.

1. The lower left quadrant of authority sponsored the traditional form of schooling in early American history. It was religious or parochial in nature. Those who favor this realm believe there is both a natural and supernatural dimension to existence. They also presume the authority of the church or some similar social institution takes precedence over the preferences of the individual. These assumptions are manifest in the organization, implementation, and methodology of instruction that is created, promoted, and utilized. Hence, authority is manifest in a hierarchal pattern:

2. In the lower right quadrant, people reject the notion of a supernatural dimension to existence and presume reality is simply a natural or physical domain. The assumption is clothed in a purely secular, naturalistic wardrobe. In this realm society also prevails over the individual as the primary source of authority. The society controls education, not the individual.

3. In the upper right quadrant, people also reject the notion of a supernatural dimension to existence and presume reality is simply a natural or physical domain. In this realm the individual, not the society, is the primary source of authority. The individual dictates education. The function of the child is to live his or her own life, not the life that his government, anxious parents or some teacher who thinks he knows best, feels the child should live. The teacher, school, and government exist to serve the individual’s desires. Autonomy and self determination reign supreme. This type of education is often discussed, occasionally pursued, but seldom established.

4. In the upper left hand quadrant, people accept the reality of both a supernatural and a natural domain. They may also acknowledge that each individual is composed of both a spiritual and physical dimension. In this realm, primary authority and responsibility for personal education resides with the individual, but there are limitations and external expectations that need to be acknowledged. The individual is subject to and has an imperative interactive relationship with God. The individual may also have a vital, interactive, and responsible relationship with other persons who may assist in the teaching/learning process. Individuals also may have an interactive relationship with society—but society exists to serve and support rather than dictate in educational matters. Authority is derived from and manifest through each of these relationships. The family institution may play a vital role in this approach to education. (D&C 68:25-34)

 

In this quadrant, the individual is viewed as an agent with inherent freedoms for self- determination. But he or she also acknowledges a supernatural influence that gives context to his or her actions. Individuals are not autonomous; they are independent but have a shared relationship with authority. An individual in this domain also accepts and honors the fact that others who may be the teachers also are accountable as individuals to the superior influence of supernatural authority. Therefore, all individuals stand on equal ground; each perceiving that social institutions exist to serve the interests of the individual and not the other way around.⁴

A third axis could be added to this pattern for thinking about education. It would be the Nature versus Nurture axis. The question underlying this axis is: Are individuals basically determined by their nature to become whatever they become, or are they basically nurtured into what they can become with wide and varied possibilities? Are people basically formed by some genetic or an acquired functions? Where one positions himself or herself on this third teeter- totter, which also intersects the previous two concerns, does influence the kind of educational path one will travel. But I will forego adding that visual complexity in this discussion; it would be a great topic in another forum. Suffice it to say, there are fundamental questions that affect educational practice. Recognizing the different and often conflicting answers to these questions helps one understand Joseph Smith’s views of education and the foundations upon which these views rest. He was aware that no educational enterprise can safely extend beyond the foundation upon which it is built. And the foundations of an educational program do invite unavoidable consequences; the influence of foundations is significant. It is folly to assume otherwise.

IV

Historical Options

The foregoing issues generally shape the educational efforts of humankind. What people believe about God, Nature, and Man dictate in one way or another how education is perceived, designed, and delivered. The consequences are numerous and significant. Three historical examples that have influenced American society illustrate this point. (A) The ancient Hebrews had their views, as did (B) the Greeks, and so does (C) our Modern society. The differences in these three world views are fundamental and often dramatic. Western culture is now a social conglomerate of all three vying for attention and allegiance. Some people would say our contemporary society is a hodge-podge of various combinations of these three intellectual tributaries. American education did emerge from this multi-dispensational drainage of ideas—in Joseph’s day as well as our own. This flood of conflicting notions has washed over but failed to erode the premises held by Joseph Smith.

It is helpful to understand the basic ideas underlying these three divergent traditions of belief, as they have tumbled down through time. Such a perception sets in relief and highlights the unique significance of Joseph’s view of education. A brief summary of the conflicts could read like this:

The Hebrew premise is that God created (1) man, (2) the world on which humankind lives, and (3) the universe in which Earth is situated. Contemporary Western culture has now essentially rejected these premises because the referent is God. The path leading away from this world view, which envisioned God as a person, offered several evolving options: (a) from God is a mystery to God is an un-embodied force; (b) then toward God is nature; (c) a current notion that perhaps Man is god—if one has to apply the title. The educator John Dewey expressed the latter view as, “god” is the power to create mental images and convert those images into action ⁵. Whatever path was followed, modern American education no longer holds that the prime educational value is to become like God is, by doing what God says and does. Many people still favor this view, but it is no longer acceptable as a national ideal or an educational objective in the public domain.

The ancient Hebrew notion that God is a person, an immortal being, our Father, the same yesterday, today, and forever—has now been replaced with secular humanistic policy. The old Hebrew view was significantly blurred; first, by the people’s rejection of authorized prophets and apostles, then by substituting a merger of Christian theology with Greek philosophy during the early centuries A.D. The Hebrew/Christian concepts of Sin, the Fall, a need for a Redeemer, an Atonement, a physical Resurrection, or God as a person with body parts and passions, all became debatable. These topics were repeatedly fashioned and refashioned over the centuries. Subsequently, such doctrines have essentially been set aside in American public discourse. Court rulings during the 20th century separated religious doctrines from government related practice.

America’s “Christian” heritage is now increasingly disavowed in public education, state, and federal institutions. It is an old story with familiar outcomes. Today’s social secularization of education would have troubled Joseph as deeply as did the conflicting creeds of the religions during his day.⁶ Joseph saw education as a way to honor, not avoid God’s role in human affairs.

This modern transition from a sacred to a secular perspective in western culture was a rerun of a similar change in ancient Greek society. However one may view the imperfect supernatural characters described in the Iliad and the Odyssey—Zeus, Hera his wife, and their twelve children, the gods of Mt. Olympus—they did represent a cultural image of supernatural authority; an image that was ultimately rejected by the intellectual community. The philosophical ideal expressed in Plato’s Republic and the works of other Greek enlightenment theorists moved people away from the concept of Deity as a person. The Golden Age of Greece embraced a new view of authority, a type of secular psychology founded on reason and rhetoric. Basically, it was the notion implied in the Greek word encyclopedia: put your foot in the center of the universe and seek knowledge, in order to admire, appreciate and celebrate the Cosmos. Knowing became the prime educational value. The Sophists, a new vocation of teachers, made a profession of promoting this emerging society. The celebration and appeasement of the traditional anthropomorphic “gods” faded. The idea of “God” was no longer conceived as a person. Greek culture was “modernized.” And the concept of human destiny changed. The new idea of the individual becoming a disembodied transient intellect, capable of fusing with the Cosmic Mind, rather than an eternal embodied personality, flourished.⁷

Society changed because basic beliefs and education changed. This seems always to be the case.

The new view was exhilarating; secular excitement in Greek culture stimulated admirable temporal achievements that dazzled not only Rome, but ultimately modern Western education. Science, art, music, and a great variety of divergent schools of thought flourished. The power and the fruits of the human intellect were compelling. As a consequence, influential people reveled in the idea that man’s ultimate positive destiny was to abandon his or her personal identity and become one with the Cosmic Mind. It was the Cosmos that was eternal—the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, not the individual. This fit well with the secular mood of that day. It sustained the Platonic notion of philosopher/kings and complemented the science of the day. Knowledge based on reason was the key to this eternal connection; everything else seemed temporary. Crime was possible. People could commit errors. But there was no word for Sin. The idea of a Fall, a Redeemer, an Atonement, or physical Resurrection, simply didn’t fit into the mindset of Greek education or the Roman version that followed (see Acts 17:16-21). The merging of this Greco-Roman perspective with early and late medieval Christianity was indeed philosophy mingled with scripture. The transition from the past to the then unforeseen future was set in motion. An influence that was to tantalize modern education was born.

The seemingly random merging of these two old contradictory world views with the conflicting perspective of the modern post-industrial world has created an indescribable tangle of educational ideas. An intellectual trip through modern educational thought for many, if not most people, creates a distinct feeling. It is akin to viewing an old house composed of multiple and indiscriminate add-ons—a room here and room there. There is a sense of ongoing striving to assemble something from a loose assortment of rather jumbled factors. The clearly documented history makes it evident why such could be the case. The traditions from which most aspects of contemporary education are formed constitute a jumble of ideas and practices that were not derived from, or even associated with, the same basic assumptions. Little wonder that today’s educational edifice looks like it does—a structure without an architect. The resulting sense of existing uncertainty alone, offers a fairly compelling reason for one to wonder how we got from where we came from to where we are now. At least it seems so to me. That is one good reason to consider Joseph Smith’s views.

V

From There and Then, to Here and Now

The larger historical path that led from the ideological conflicts of antiquity, to the perplexity in Joseph Smith’s day, and on to present-day educational concerns is quite clear. The trek was away from (a) revealed doctrine, principles, and practices through (b) philosophy, logic, and rhetoric, to (c) hypothesis, experiments, and scientific theory. The intellectual divide over which education passed was precarious; it traveled through deep canyons between three great peaks: the Reformation, Renaissance, and Enlightenment. These three monuments to change emerged from the landscape of Western culture during the 15th through the 18th centuries. These striking alterations in the cultural landscape, the results of socially seismic activity, helped fashion the formation of modern education. Reasons for sending children to school changed and changed and changed. So did the nature of their schooling. The various developments created an exciting epoch of both positive and questionable outcomes. Certain basic issues born long ago, however, lived on.

Many positive results appeared. For example, these three great movements sufficiently uprooted autocratic and dictatorial rule, to lay a foundation for individual freedom and a democratic social order. This was new. The leverage for this change was provided by a spirit of personal exploration, a remarkable increase in literacy, and an advanced vision of human transportation. The printing press was invented, explorers seemed to go in every direction, and individuals flexed their capacity to decide for themselves in both religious and secular matters. The real but battle-scarred result was the discovery of a new world, new opportunity for individual growth, and a redistribution of governing powers. A major impetus for these activities seemed to be a pervasive spiritual exhilaration not associated with any particular religious organization.

The Greek influence, among others, was evident; an ancient pattern apparent. It was like a larger than life rerun of her Golden Age (@ 5th century B.C.) As it had before, an energetic Enlightenment gave forth a modern science; an exhilarating Renaissance provided a new humanities; the liberation of a Reformation of protest in personal belief gave birth to a multitude of new religious sects and a powerful urge for civil freedom. Elements of the past became deeply entwined with concepts of the future. The tension lines escalated and vibrated with violence when plucked. Education was hardly equal to the task of establishing order, equity, or justice. The gateways to greater civilized conduct burst open, but people were hardly prepared to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Temporal prosperity over-ran moral discipline. As it had been, so it was again; flooding freedom carried with it a significant amount of chaotic debris and confusion. The social order grew and expanded as the moral order wobbled with a new form of dizzy indifference. The fresh options in religion, professions, and social relations seemed to invite new forms of apathy.

This was the world into which Joseph Smith was born (1805)—19th century America. In his day the great shift, that moved people away from a belief in a universe created from two building blocks—spirit and matter—to a belief that all reality is simply physical matter, was just an embryonic image in the New World. It was still in incubation. But the stage was clearly set in American culture for the birth of secularism; a monumental transition in the power structure was about to occur. Religionists in Joseph’s day could not explain what spirit was and they did not agree on how to define an abstract God. This deficiency was to prove indefensible in the face of a rapidly changing scientific and technological world. And so the shift occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, first among the academic intellect and subsequently on Main Street U. S. A. Between 1880 and 1920 the transition in thought became comfortable among a critical mass of intellectuals. Control of higher education changed hands. It was now convenient to believe and to teach that creation could be viewed as spontaneous, accidental, evolutionary, or benevolent chance. To the skeptical mind this view was more persuasive than belief in a mysterious, incomprehensible power that fashioned the universe out of nothing.¹⁰

Religious instruction and belief in Joseph’s day was poised on the edge of this turmoil. He lived on the cusp of the great change that was destined to spawn a full-fledged secular society in America—a society based on what has been called the secularization hypothesis: the more we learn about the secular, the less need there is for the spiritual. And this brings us back to the issue of authority, which can now be considered within a context that displays greater clarity and appreciation for what Joseph Smith espoused as a Minister of Education. His views were radical to the educators and religionists of his day. Now, two centuries later, they appear even more sweepingly prophetic and perhaps to some frustratingly enigmatic—hard to understand, difficult to ignore. Today’s theory and practice of education is considered by many to be a quivering structure. When placed next to the propositions Joseph Smith put forth, this enterprise fades in comparison, seemingly ignoring crucial issues. Both in its scope of purpose and its vision for learning and teaching, contemporary American education falls dramatically short due to one major flaw: Current educational methods, media, technology, and achievements, admirable as they may seem, increasingly appear out of touch with a viable moral order.¹¹ This breeds uneasiness.

Ironically, much of the good gained by modern society has been lost and remains in jeopardy because moral imperatives were exchanged for ethical relativism. In street language that means there are no absolutes, anything goes if it feels good or if the group says its okay.

Ease of life and a number of positive benefits (motor-driven machinery, the waning of official oppression upon women and children, movement away from politically endorsed slavery, and increased longevity among other things) have been accompanied by various moral cancers. Dramatic and disturbing statistics tell the story. It seems the better off society has become temporally, the worse off it has become morally and spiritually. Overtly manifest in her schools, America is increasingly turning away from God and his purposes. At its core this is the classic educational issue. Does man need God to help him define and sustain a viable moral order? Or, can man do this by his own power? In light of current evidence, the question returns, “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36) Joseph Smith offered a clear and simple solution.

VI

Joseph Smith’s Tutors

No person can become a truly great educator, without first becoming an effective student worthy of becoming authorized. Joseph learned this lesson early. And the quality of a student’s education is significantly related to the teachers under whom the individual studies—those who empower his or her qualification. Joseph Smith was a focused learner; his deepest desire was to become qualified and perform well. He had an extra-ordinary preparation, as well as remarkable and continuous in-service training. This exceptional instruction is obviously the key to the unique educational enterprise he initiated. In just twenty-four years he laid the foundations and sketched the future pattern for a remarkable teaching/learning institution upon which his successors have built. This was no ordinary venture; it was an endeavor that not only spanned the continents of this world, but extended into eternity. This is why he needed a special faculty to prepare him to be a minister of education—a minister who perceived and pointed toward an expanding program of education as:

• An Individual Function
• A Family Obligation
• A Church Responsibility
• A State Interest

Joseph was born into a supportive family. Whatever his native talents, they were enhanced by the love and emotional support of his immediate family. The social and financial circumstances of his parents, however, restricted his exposure to formal education. His boyhood schooling was limited or shielded, which ever one chooses to believe. But during his teen-age years, the desires of his heart led him into an unusual and unique personal experience. He sought and received an audience with God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and felt the influence of the Holy Ghost. This experience was followed with numerous tutorials by former prophets and servants of God who had long since passed beyond the veil of mortality. This cadre of teachers constituted the faculty from which he obtained his knowledge and direction. They were individuals with divine commissions to prepare him for his work. Though Joseph sought no personal recognition by identifying himself with his teachers, the records of their influence remain.

Among the additional personalities mentioned who enriched his knowledge were Adam [?Eve]; Seth, Enoch, and Noah; Moses, Elias, and Elijah; Peter, James, and John; John the Baptist, others of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles in the Holy land, and the Twelve appointed Disciples in the New World; Paul the apostle, Moroni, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and apparently many others. These were instructors who understood humankind. They knew the origin, nature, and destiny of God’s children and all that pertained to them. A primary result of this process of preparation was, as Joseph Smith could say to his earthly associates, “I have the whole plan of the kingdom before me, and no other person has.” This was not a statement of braggadocio, it was for him simply a statement of fact. Not only did it reflect his knowledge, it revealed the authenticity of his authority.¹² It was an authority he seldom referred to but always seemed to emulate. He didn’t flaunt his credentials, he simply loved and served the people because of them.

VII

Fundamental Propositions

The uniqueness of Joseph Smith’s view on education is rooted in the dramatically different perspective he expressed on the nature of God, spirit, matter, space, and light. His proclamations on these fundamental issues struck like lightning through a dark sky. They still do.

Who or What is God? The discussion of God in America has flourished under a canopy of abstraction. Amidst the conversations appear such phrases as:

• Unmoved Mover
• Undefined being with certain described qualities
• A Mystery
• Nature
• The Universe or Cosmic Mind
• A transcendent influence that created the world but does not intervene
• Incomprehensible perfect being
• The human power that transforms thought into action
• Love
• A spirit, an essence, without body parts or passions
• An absentee Landlord

Most of these ideas had been circulating for hundreds of years. None of them were really definitive; applied to God, they are mental abstractions. The terminology offered word symbols but nothing concrete and unifying. They were naming explanations, not explaining explanations. People talked about God. They gave him descriptive names, but who claimed to know who he was or what he looked like? God was a mystery—even to those who proposed to represent him. If there is an eternal God and if it is the key to eternal life to know him, that must be important.

Joseph Smith erased this quandary in simple, straightforward language. He had the answer. He taught what he knew by his own experience: God is a person; he is our Father, the literal father of our spirit bodies. His name is Elohim and he has a resurrected body of flesh and bones as tangible as man. Jesus Christ is his Son, who also has a resurrected body just like the Father. The Holy Ghost is a person, but he does not have a body of flesh and bone—he is a personage of Spirit. They are all separate beings; they constitute the Godhead and all share in the same purpose—bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of all who reside on this earth which they created and maintain for us. Humankind existed as individuals in a pre-mortal estate with God. This information sent shock waves through the theological world that continue to this day. “It can’t be,” the critics cried. Why not? It was only what sacred scripture had proclaimed from the very beginning. (Genesis 1, 2; D&C 130:22-23) “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God” (TPJS, p. 345), said Joseph. This should be the most treasured knowledge of all. What could be of greater value?

What is spirit? The term spirit, frequently used by theologians and early philosophers also come trailing conceptual uncertainty. Spirit is mentioned in a variety of ways, for example:

• Thought
• Air set in motion by breathing
• Conscience, fellowship, and intuition
• Life, living substance
• Immaterial, immortal part of man
• A disembodied soul A supernatural being
• Energy
• A disposition of the human mind
• An organ that receives and contains God the spirit
• Principle of conscious life
• The incorporeal part of humans as opposed to matter

Again, there was and is an intellectual reach, but little or nothing to grasp.

Joseph answered the question simply and directly. He said “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure” than physical matter “and can only be discerned by purer eyes . . . We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8, italics added). This concept alone would revolutionize most contemporary education; the implications for perceiving the student and constructing curriculum are immense.

Along with the fundamental questions about God and spirit, Joseph also spoke out on the ambiguity associated with matter, space, and light; issues that also relate to deeper educational concerns. He explained that light from God’s presence fills the immensity of space. And all existence is subject to law. There is no space in which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. He was given to understand by his teachers that only that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same. (D&C 88:34-39) Light is a necessary companion to the truth, and truth is a knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. To seek the truth without the light is folly. Light enables a person to understand the proper application of knowledg— which is the beginning of wisdom. (D&C section 93) Concepts like these could and should influence how one views education.

Such thoughts, which were understood by Joseph, could also make the minds of the most gifted physicists and mathematical theorists tremble with curiosity.¹³ He was taught how God governs and what we should do in response to that divine governance. He revealed how God speaks, what constitutes his voice, how we may hear that voice, and what impact this can have on our personal being. (D&C 88:66-68) Joseph did not proclaim himself an elitist in his educational thought. What he was given, he offered freely to others. All who were willing to qualify themselves could know what he knew. This knowledge was not his creation; it was given to him and his ministry was to share it with all who would accept. In fact, he said this was the purpose of education on this mortal sphere— “to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another,” because “when we understand the character of God, and know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.” (TPJS pp. 345, 350) His view of education was not restricted to this exalted realm; he connected that lofty view to this earth and the issues of everyday mortal life. In addition to the eternal designs, Joseph proclaimed to his community the purpose of education was to “diffuse that kind of knowledge, which will be of practical utility, and for the public good, and also for private and individual happiness.” ¹⁴

Man is Eternal. Joseph was taught not only that God was a person, the literal father of our spirit body—a being we can know and converse with—but that each human being is eternal. Death will not cause us to cease to exist; it will not result in our losing personal identity; rather, it is a doorway to a more exalted sphere of personal opportunity. Not only is this to be the case individually, but it also comes with an invitation to preserve family relationships—husband and wife, parents and children, generation to generation. That which is on earth in its pure and undefiled pattern is and will be in heaven. This was the grand purpose that comprehended the aims of education. Education was to be a means for perpetuating the existence of family relationships in the eternal context. Such vision puts the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic into an entirely new role and elevates the significance of learning to a whole new level. It was an extraordinary perspective then and remains so today.

Man is an agent, free to choose. In the face of “doctrines” that maintained humans were not independent agents free to choose right from wrong such as:

• Man is a fallen creature, predestined to either heaven or hell by an arbitrary God.
• People are essentially products of their environment.
• Humankind is shaped and controlled by genetics, which may be engineered.

Joseph proclaimed another view. He had learned that humanity was, at its very core, unique from the rest of creation. People did not belong to the (a) kingdom of minerals, (b) kingdom of vegetables, or (c) kingdom of animals. Humans were of divine origin, children of God, inherently members of the kingdom of God and potential heirs to all its rewards. Joseph knew there were “things that act and things that are acted upon;” that humanity was created to act, not to be acted upon”—[except] by the law of justice according to the commandments of God. (2 Nephi 2:26.) People are free to act; God has given humankind to know good from evil and has made them free to act according to their own desires. (Helaman 14:30-31) Hence, the most important of all education, was the education of a person’s desires.

Joseph Smith’s doctrine of human agency and freedom can be summarized in eight fundamental statements: (see D&C 93:29-31)

1. Samuel A. Prior, “A Visit to Nauvoo,” Millennial Star IV, #7, (Nov. 1843), pp. 105-108
2. See Joseph Smith’s History in the Pearl of Great Price. This account describes in his own words his appointment to teach the people. There are many volumes written about the subsequent evelopments that followed this initial commission.
3. Shown below are examples of educators who have adopted different positions along these divergent continuums and the four flex-models of education they represent. It is evident to those who work in the field of education that fundamental assumptions influence how people view learning and teaching and how they structure the schooling that will occur. (Additional explanation is available in N. J. Flinders Teach the Children chapter 7 and Appendix A.)
4. Joseph Smith endorsed the belief that, “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. We believe that no governments can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:1-2). It is evident that Joseph believed institutions exist to serve the individual; people are the end, organizations are the means to that end and care should be taken not to confuse the two.
5. John Dewey A Common Faith, pp. 48, 51
6. Joseph Smith clearly understood the warning that was issued by God regarding America as a land of promise. “And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fullness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fullness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. . . .And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, . . . Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ.” (Ether 2:9-12)
7. The story of the Greek influence on early Christianity and later western education is long and tangled. It involves the shifting views attending the Greek Enlightenment (500-300 B.C.) and the merging of Greek philosophy with a struggling Christian population following the death of Jesus Christ and his twelve apostles. An extensive examination of these matters can be found in: History of the Church, vol. 1, Introduction (written by B.H. Roberts); Friedrich Solmsen Intellectual Experiments of the Greek Enlightenment in which he notes that “The result was a psychology established on a purely secular basis, with no need for divine causation.”; all of Werner Jaeger’s Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, 1961, particularly pp. 30, 90; Augustine’s Confessions and On Christian Doctrine; P.E. More Hellenistic Philosophies, 1923; The Anti Nicene Fathers (9 volumes); W.H.C. Frend The Rise of Chrisitanity, 1984; J. L. Barker Apostasy from the Divine Church, 1960; Edwin Hatch The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, 1957; Hugh Nibley The World and the Prophets, 1960.
10. Medieval Christianity developed a philosophical theory of creation known as ex nihilo, meaning out of nothing. The popularity of Greek Platonic philosophy in the schools of the third and fourth centuries created a number of serious doctrinal conflicts. Among these were (a) The nature of creation, (b) God not having a physical body, and (c) the impossibility of a physical resurrection. Consider three examples: (1) Because matter was considered corrupt (imperfect), it was unthinkable that God would have created the world from physical elements. Thus Augustine would write, “God made all things which he did not beget of himself, not of those things that already existed, but of those things that did not exist at all, that is, of nothing . . . For there was not anything of which he could make them.” (St. Augustine, Concerning the Nature of God, ch. XXVI.) (2) Because matter was considered corrupt, it was unthinkable that God would take upon himself a physical body. Therefore, the early church fathers would write, And if God is declared to be a body, then He will also be found to be material, since every body is composed of matter. But if He be composed of matter, and matter is undoubtedly corruptible, then according to them, God is liable to corruption.” (Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 277.) (3) Because matter was considered corrupt it was unthinkable that God would provide that man be eternally united to a resurrected body. So, Celsus would argue, “Who beheld the risen Jesus? A half frantic woman, as you state, and some other person, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or, under the influence of a wandering imagination, had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals.” (Celsus, see Origen, “Against Celsus,” ii 55, A.D. 170) Note also that “Many who reject the traditional belief in a corporeal resurrection . . . find a mediating position . . . [in the] theory . . . of a ‘spiritual resurrection’.” (J. R. Dummelow Bible Commentary, p. cxxvi).⁸ Joseph’s position confronted both of these options with a viable alternative. And he states this position with an incredulously simple clarity.⁹In contrast to these three positions, Joseph Smith wrote: (1) Regarding creation, “We [the gods] will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these maydwell.” (Abraham 3:24) “Now, the word create . . . does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; . . .God had materials to organize the world . . . which is element . . . which can never be destroyed; they may beorganized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.” (Teachings of theProphet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352; see also D&C 93:33.) (2) Regarding God having a physical body, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.” (D&C 130:22). (3) Concerning the resurrection,” . . . notwithstanding they shall die, they shall also rise again . . . [and] receive the same body Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352; see also D&C 93:33). (2) Regarding God having a physical body, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.” (D&C 130:22). (3) Concerning the resurrection, “. . . notwithstanding they shall die, they shall also rise again . . . [and] receive the same body which was a natural body.” (D&C 88:27- 28).
11. The popularity of modern secular philosophy in today’s schools has, like those in medieval times, created equally serious but almost opposite doctrinal conflicts. Three examples are:

    (1) Because modern thought defines existence as monistic—that physical matter is the only building block in the universe, it is unthinkable that man also has a spiritual body. The psychologist John Watson, arguing against man having a supernatural dimension, wrote, “One example of such a [false] concept is . . . that every individual has a soul which is separate and distinct from the body. . . .[but] no one has ever touched a soul, or has seen one in a test tube, or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience.” (John B. Watson Behaviorism, 1924. p. 4).

    (2) Because modern thought defines existence as monistic, it is unthinkable that “God” can be anything more than a property of physical matter, or that a spirit demon (the Devil) could exist. John Dewey, the famous American educator, explained “God” in these words, “What I have been criticizing is the identification of the ideal with a particular Being, especially when that identification makes necessary the conclusion that this Being is outside of nature, and what I have tried to show is that the ideal itself has roots in natural conditions; it emerges when the imagination idealizes existence by laying hold of the possibilities offered to thought and action . . . . It is the active relation between the ideal and actual to which I would give the name ‘God.’ I would not insist that the name must be given.” (John Dewey A Common Faith, 1934. pp. 48, 51). Albert Einstein added his supportive perspective when he said, “The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him [the informed thinking person], neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. . . . In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God.” (Albert Einstein Out of My Later Years, 1950. pp. 29-33).

    (3) Because modern thought defines existence as monistic, it is convenient to attribute to physical matter (and the social environment derived from it) the responsibility for social evil. The psychologist B. F. Skinner taught, “In the traditional view a person responds to the world around him in the sense of acting upon it. . . . The opposing view—common, I believe, to all versions of behaviorism—is that the initiating action is taken by the environment rather than by the perceiver. . . . the environment stays where it is and where it has always been— outside the body. . . . There is no place in the scientific position for a self as a true originator or initiator of action.” (B. F. Skinner About Behaviorism, 1974. pp. 72-73, 225). “After the reign of Henry VIII in England many sinful acts were formally declared to be not only immoral but illegal . . . Making what were once dealt with as sins into crimes rendered the designation of sin increasingly pointless . . . . Gradually the effects of ‘the new psychology,’ . . . began to be apparent . . . some crime was being viewed as symptomatic. Sins had become crimes and now crimes were becoming illnesses; in other words whereas the police and judges had taken over from the clergy, the doctors and psychologists were now taking over from the police and judges.” (Karl Menninger Whatever Became of Sin, 1973). The results of this transition is obvious; you do not punish people for being sick because of exposure to a faulty environment or a malfunctioning nature—even their own nature. Morality was redefined as ethical relativism. The environment or genetics became the cause of behavior; the individual was deemed legally less and less responsible for his or her behavior.

    The teachings of Joseph Smith reject the foregoing propositions. He taught, (1) the universe is composed of two building blocks—spirit stuff and physical or temporal stuff. “For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy.” (D&C 93:33). (2) Regarding God and the Devil, Joseph foresaw the time when people would ” deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel, and [would] say unto the people; . . . hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men.” (2 Nephi 28:5). Likewise, he noted, concerning the Adversary, that “he [the Devil] saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none. . . . thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence, there is no deliverance.” (2 Nephi 28:22). (3) As to the moral consequences of these doctrines, Joseph proclaimed “The children of men . . . are redeemed from the fall, they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.” (2 Nephi 2:26). “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (2nd Article of Faith). Morality is doing what God says is in the best interest of his children.

12. See HC 5:139; Joseph Smith History; John Taylor JD 21:94; D&C 128:20-21; 110:1-16; Truman Madsen, Joseph Smith The Prophet, p. 44; D&C sections 13; 27); H. Donl Peterson in his article “Moroni,” cites 59 different personalities who appeared to Joseph Smith or were seen by him in vision. 
13. Joseph’s view of reality, knowledge, and value was not of the academic variety. He observed through the medium of revelation how the seen and unseen dimensions of existence function. He reported on what he saw, described aspects of these operations, and used that knowledge to discern truth from error without presuming to proclaim these insights as a vocation to be marketed. Divine revelation is not bound by the limitations of reason and empirical experiment and Joseph did not subject his knowledge to those forms for the purpose of gaining acceptance. Modern theorists continue to wrestle with the enigma: What is real? How do we know? This search, understandably, goes on. Contemporary views of the macroscopic and microscopic domains of existence have emerged through many participants seeking the truth. Historical figures like Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Einstein are familiar names to those who strive to obtain a theory that explains everything. Astronomers and Astro-physicists now speak and write of planets, solar systems, galaxies, and meta-galaxies. They talk of Black Holes and Dark Matter, Light Years and Cosmic Webs, and Novas and Super Novas. Others who probe the tiny building blocks called cells, speak and write of molecules, atoms, neutrons, electrons, quarks, and now strings that presume a multi-dimensional—six or more—existence in which people and things may dwell. As we pass through the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern epics of man-made theory, it is apparent that human knowledge is soft and every changing. We would like to know and know for sure, but that security seems to be just out of reach without divine assistance. Joseph Smith bridged that gap and invited others to follow. The more people understand what he proclaimed, the more intriguing his knowledge becomes.
14. Times and Seasons, vol. 2, January 15, 1841, p. 274.
15. Dean C. Jesse, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p.397. 
16. Times and Seasons, vol. 3, May 2, 1842. p.776. emphasis added.
17. The day the Church was organized the basic principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were introduced. As early as 1831, less than two years after the Church was organized, Joseph made clear the basic unit of the Church was the family. He recorded and proclaimed the will of the Lord pertaining to parents: “And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.” Also emphasized in the same instruction was the fact that parents were accountable not only for teaching their children (1) faith in Christ, (2) repentance, (3) baptism for remission of sins, and (4) the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost, but they were also to (5) teach their children to pray, (6) walk uprightly before the Lord, (7) keep the Sabbath day holy, and to do this (8) while accepting and magnifying their callings in the Church. (D&C 68:25-30.) This information was delivered with an admonition to the leaders in the Church to set their own houses in order by complying with these instructions. (Ibid. vs. 31-35.) Fundamental as the doctrines of faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands are in the Bible, it seems that no other single denomination in Joseph’s day believed in and practiced all these principles. Some sects embraced one or more but not all. See also, THE FAMILY: A Proclamation to the World issued by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Sept. 23, 1995) for a statement re-affirming Joseph Smith’s teachings.
18. The First Great Awakening (1735-1743) is well known. The trigger that released the American Revolution could well have been the impetus of this period of religious revival. American colonists were motivated to establish their right to separate the Church and State sufficient to allow the citizenry to create or embrace the church of their choice among other issues related to individual agency. The Second Great Awakening (1815- 1830) is also well known. This revivalist fervor spawned an intense debate over Free Will and Predestination (Determinism). The Bible emerged as being more fundamental than church structure and a sense of an immanent Millennium emerged. The stage was set for the impending battle between traditional Christian belief and modern secular philosophy, which flowered during the 20th century and rages on to the present day.
19. What one must not lose sight of, is that Joseph Smith’s educational influence moved West with the Saints. His foundational principles and policies nurtured in Nauvoo continued to shape the nature of educational goals wherever the Church has been established. A lucid, explicit example is manifest in the Articles of Incorporation written for the Association formed to build the Manti, Utah Temple. This document of June 26, 1886 was signed by John Taylor, George Q. Cannon and forty eight other men from the Temple District. Article Two in part reads: “The objects of said incorporation, are religious, scientific, social and educational, as well as for the practice of religious ceremonies and sacred ordinances, and not for pecuniary profit. It being the purpose of the incorporators to found and maintain a place for the administration of religious ordinances and a school of science in a Temple at Manti, Sanpete County, Utah Territory, for the practice of religion and for the promotion of learning and scientific knowledge, said school to include departments devoted to Theology, Astronomy, Mathematics, History, Languages, Laws, Natural Science and all other principles of true knowledge pertaining to the growth of infidelity which pervades so many departments of science as now taught, we enter into this agreement with the distinct understanding that nothing shall ever be taught in said school of science which will throw doubt upon the existence of the Supreme Being, or that will detract from His glorious majesty, or that will lessen in the least degree most exalted faith in His divine doctrines.” Although subsequent growth and development in the Church permitted the building of educational facilities separate from the Temple, the principles and philosophy established by Joseph Smith has remained foundational in the Church. Sometimes a few members struggle with his premises due to their excessive allegiance to secular influences. Most, however, resonate with John Taylor’s revealed witness, that it is “in these houses [temples] which have been built unto me” that I the Lord will reveal “. . . those things pertaining to the past, the present, and the future, to the life that now is, and the life that is to come, pertaining to law, order, rule, dominion, and government, to things affecting the nation and other nations; the laws of heavenly bodies in their times and seasons, and the principles or laws by which they are governed, and their relation to each other, and whether they be bodies celestial, terrestrial or telestial, shall all be made known, as I will, saith the Lord.” (Revelation given to President John Taylor, Logan, Utah May 16, 1884. Church Archives.)