Latter-day Free Agent

 Since there is the Church of the Latter-day Dude, I thought there mine as well be Latter-day Free Agents. 

Why I Unapologetically use the term "Mormon"

 The first reason I will continue to use the term Mormon is because Joseph Smith himself accepted the nickname Mormon and played around with the term and analyzed it through the study of languages: and said that when you do that you can say that Mormon simply means "more good."

This is the main reason why I will continue to use the word Mormon, because it represents what being an Emergent Mormon is all about, that is appreciating that Joseph Smith's theo-philosophy is more good.

Second, the term "Mormonism" is canonized in scripture in D&C 135: 7. Enough said.

Thirdly, the term Mormon distinguishes one's cultural heritage and personal philosophy as LDS from Catholicism and Protestantism. In a Midnight Mormons episode (for November 2021) they discussed changing their podcast name and removing the word Mormon. A commenter named Liberty LLama responded, "I think that calling yourself a Mormon really draws a line in the sand of where you stand, and what you believe. When we call ourselves Christians. The assumption is that we believe in an immaterial god, and a three in one god." That is exactly right. 

When someone says to me, "I'm a Christian." I really don't know what they mean. Are they an Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian? Are they Catholic? Are they an Episcopalian? So nowadays that term really does not clarify anything specific. The one thing that phrase "I'm a Christian" does mean to me is that they likely hold the view that God is this vaporous no-thing, there is no feminine Divine, no Heavenly Mother or female angels (only a single dad and celibate son and all male angels), and people are consigned to eternal torture for thoughtcrime. As that is what is usually entailed with the designation of Christian as I've encountered it. So saying "Mormon" avoids that with Joseph Smith rejecting an eternal hell with his Three Degrees of Glory and his other universalistic  theologies and rituals. It makes it clear where you stand philosophically and theologically. And yes it's true that Mormons do have a different Jesus than the sectarian creeds. There's even an academic book called The Mormon Jesus: A Biography by John G. Turner.

As I cover in this blog, Joseph Smith's "more good" theology moved away from the despising of the body found in puritanical sectarianism. To use the term Mormon not only calls to mind a character in The Book of Mormon (scripture other Christian sects don't have), and distinct LDS theologies different from the sectarian Creeds; but also calls to mind a Life Philosophy that embraces joy in the body and a sex positive attitude: that grew out of Joseph Smith's jovial nature and "people person," joyful,  personality; which comes through in his thinking and philosophizing; which is distinctly different from the personalities and thinking processes of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Introduction & Core Theory of The Emergent Mormon Perspective

Nietzsche once said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” I tend to agree with that statement. This is just one way or perspective and approach (or my way) that works for me and may or may not work for you. To each their own, I say. In other words, I don't think that any way of "Mormoning" is the only right way. If someone is happy as a Utah-based LDS member, I support them in that. If an atheist is happy with that worldview then I support them. If someone is happy as a Buddhist, I say cool. If someone enjoys being a Protestant or Catholic and they like that Faith then I support them. I believe in doing whatever works for you and is not harmful to yourself nor those around you. I share my views here only from a position of generosity or the bestowing virtue, i.e. in the spirit of offering ideas that have been empowering for me personally which could be empowering to others.

This site is Not for Those Wanting to Maintain an Orthodox LDS Testimony 

I want to be clear here in the introduction that this website is not for true believers and those who want to hold on to an orthodox LDS testimony. This site is instead designed specifically for anyone who's trying to stay LDS (for whatever reason) by adopting an unorthodox perspective because the traditional orthodox perspective no longer works for them. I'm writing for those who want to explore alternative ways to appreciate their Mormon heritage after some type of so-called "faith crisis."  So I am writing more for the reader who has already been doubting or questioning some or all of the supernatural truth claims of the LDS (Brighamite) Church, but for example might have family in the Church and can't easily walk away from it even if they wanted to without causing major social upheaval and discord in their family. Or they themselves, despite their doubts and questioning, still deep down want to retain their Mormon identity and want to find a way to respect and honor their Mormon cultural heritage, and want to have a meaning in life and a sense of belonging to a tribe and something "larger than themselves" through Mormonism. So they are looking for alternative ways to think about Mormonism beyond the traditional narrative or orthodox perspective. They are looking for other perspectives and narratives to explore, some additional intellectual support or new ideas for interpreting and appreciating Mormonism, which they can combine with other unorthodox Pro-Mormon sites like the churchistrue.com and stayLDS.com; which they can absorb and contemplate and then go on to form their own opinions and perspective. 

Emergent Mormonism as a Nondenominational Perspective 

The Emergent Mormon Perspective is not an endorsement or apologetic defense of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Brighamite sect or Utah-based LDS Church). If one is looking for an apologetic defense of the Utah-based LDS Church and it's official doctrines and policies there are other sites for that. This is not the site for you. This is also not an "anti-Mormonism" site either and if that is what one is looking for there are other sites for that as well. I consider the Emergent Mormon paradigm a form of "Nondenominational Mormonism." In other words, this website does not intend to defend or promote any particular sect or denomination of Mormonism. This site is intended for all types of "Mormons" or those who are part of the Smith-Rigdon Restoration Tradition. I intend this site to be useful to any and all of the various Book of Mormon sects and groups, as they form their own opinions and explore their own individual perspectives.

My Larger Goal of Respecting my European LDS Pioneer Ancestors 

The historical fact is that most of the first Mormons who migrated to Utah were of British and European descent. My ancestors on both sides of my family were British and European (e.g. Scandinavian) LDS Pioneers, many of whom practiced plural marriage. I am proud of my Mormon Heritage. Sometimes I describe myself as a Heritage Mormon which I go into more detail here.

My larger goal for this website is actually humanitarian, I think if more exmormons with Indo-European ancestry, and who have LDS Pioneer ancestors, realized what early Mormonism was really all about (growing a lineal tribe) and that their own lineage contributed to generating a quasi-ethnic People, I think some of them might be less "anti-" and more tolerant and respectful of their ancestral roots and rich cultural heritage stemming from their LDS family members. Like a Jewish person who may not practice Orthodox Judaism but still appreciate their lineal Jewish ethnicity, heritage and culture. Unless of course they're into hating on themselves which unfortunately is popular in some extremist political circles. 

So my larger goal is to provide an alternative perspective -- a way for those who question or doubt some or all of the supernatural truth claims of the LDS Church -- through appreciating their Mormon heritage by providing an alternative method for interpreting Mormonism: primarily through Nietzsche's eyes, as a more bodily life-affirming worldview based less on whether or not you literally believe in this or that proposition and more on respecting and valuing one's tribal lineage, as an Americanized gospel; which in my case at least, led me to feel more empowered and to better appreciate my Mormon heritage as a part of my very DNA and inherited cultural identity. In other words, by understanding that it was my own Indo-European ancestors that contributed to growing the main body of the first Mormons in Utah (in the 1800s), I began to better appreciate my connection to Mormonism as more than a mere "belief system" and toward seeing it more as a tribal identity: connecting me to my lineal ancestors going back thousands of years back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Literalism versus Typology

 

Again, to be clear, this site is not an attempt to defend or support the traditional LDS supernatural claims, as there are other sites that already do that. In this blog I do take the position that Mormonism is potentially inspired, but I also present a more naturalistic perspective seeing all religion as being ultimately mostly typology or typological-poetry. For example, see this short 20 minute video: "How to Read Scripture: Archetypes in the Bible and Why Literalism Misses the Point" on YouTube. In other words, human-filtered religious stories, metaphors and symbols, are more often only pointing to God (or the possible Divine Realm), but will always be limited and hindered by our human mammalian nature and limited fallible perceptions (which even the apostle Paul acknowledged in 1 Corinthians 13: 8-12). So, with Paul, I recognize that we see in a mirror dimly/darkly when it comes to fully knowing any possible supernatural realm. Yet I also simultaneously remain open minded to the position of those like the theologian Marcus Borg. I'm also open to the idea that Mormon typological-poetry could have been inspired by an ineffable Divine Realm, but which does not treat humans like puppets with strings; but somehow inspires while allowing the human's own imaginative creativity to filter any "divine inspiration" through their own human language and culture: in the language of metaphors and symbols. I cover this in more detail here. 

So in brief, my core intention in this site is to provide a way for someone like me, with Pioneer Mormon ancestors, to feel proud of their lineage and heritage, even if they personally do not believe in every orthodox truth claim of the LDS (Brighamite) Church. 

My Intended Reader:

As covered briefly above, in composing this website, I had in mind a specific type of reader for this blog. My intended reader is anyone who is, or has been, an LDS member (a "Mormon"), but who has experienced a so-called "faith crisis" after deciding to dig deeper into Mormon history and LDS truth claims. Perhaps they ran across the CES Letter or Letter for my Wife.com or the LDS Church's own Gospel Topic Essays covering controversial issues. They have gone through the "dark night of the soul," as it's called, after deconstructing their traditional LDS testimony. For example, they likely no longer believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (i.e. they don't believe it's certain that the Book of Mormon is a literal history of Native Americans), or that the Book of Abraham (in the Pearl of Great Price) is a literal history of Abraham in Egypt; and they are aware that the First Vision likely went through stages of development and probably did not occur as the LDS Church claims it did in most of it's published materials. Beyond that, they have continued to deconstruct nearly all religious claims in general, and perhaps even moving more toward deism, nontheism, or agnosticism, etc.

My ideal reader is however also someone who does not want to stay stuck in deconstruction mode and on a path that so often leads to a depressing pessimistic worldview known as nihilism (as exmormon Brittney Hartley has opened up about here). For, far too many exmormon atheists form a depressive nihilistic life attitude that Bill Reel expressed to Jacob Hanson in 2023 in podcast episodes number 381-382 here). I am often thinking of these types of nihilistic individuals when I composed this website because I too went through a similar phase of philosophical and psychological development over time; and thus I am often writing to the atheistic leaning type of person who yet longs for something more: more meaning in their life and who deep down wish to overcome their existential despair and depleting mental state of nihilism (that often comes with atheism).

My intention then is to provide a potential meaning in life and higher purpose with a more healthy worldview for the critical thinking "atheistic type"; a way to return to at least a portion of that psychological fullness they once felt and a form of "spirituality" that is uplifting and empowering without being stifling and medieval. An option of reconstructing a meaningful worldview and higher purpose in life, by presenting Mormonism through this alternative perspective of mine: so that they don't have to "check their brain at the door" of any church to still feel uplifted and empowered through my Emergent Mormon Perspective (if they find that it works for them like it does for me).

So my ideal reader has either started to or plans to (or is in the process of) reconstructing a new meaning-making Christian life-stance from a more theologically "liberal" Christian Perspective. Note that one can hold theologically "liberal" (i.e. scholarly) scriptural views, yet be more politically conservative or center-right at the same time. 

My ideal reader is similarly, one who plans to (or are trying to) find a way to appreciate LDS scripture and theology from a more “historical-metaphorical” way of reading Scripture (as taught by Marcus Borg); and by doing so not "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and stay connected to the baseline Mormon philosophy on their own terms. 

My Path of Reconstructing after a "Faith Crisis":

My own deconstruction process was a long process where I went from being a devout LDS member when I was age 18 to 23, to becoming basically an agnostic by age 25 and then spending years as either an agnostic or a deist, and for a few years thinking I was a nontheist. My deconstruction began after questioning various LDS truth claims that led me to investigate those claims without fear, which led me of course to no longer believe in the traditional LDS truth claims. Then I began reading and listening to many atheist authors. Followed by reading everything I could get my hands on about the sciences, reading everything from books on Darwinian evolution to physics, as well as critical biblical scholarship, etc. My deconstruction was I would say complete by that point in that I could not believe in most of the literal truth claims of any religion for I had just learned too much.

Longing for the Transcendent & Learning Christian Bible Scholarship

Despite my more rational and mostly physicalist worldview by that point, I longed for deeper meaning and a connection to the Transcendent (whatever that was). I was most at peace when I found authors who themselves flowed between the two worlds of "spirituality" and the physical sciences. The two authors that most influenced me in this process were John Spong and Marcus Borg.

To better understand this website and where I am coming from I highly recommend beginning with this interview of John Spong here: wherein he covers how to interpret the Gospels more metaphorically. One of my favorite talks by John Spong is his talk titled From Tribal God to Universal Presence: The Story of the Bible. If one listens to this talk and then listens to his talk titled Isolating John from the Other Gospels, one begins to see that Christianity clearly went through stages of theological evolution or an emergent process. When this understanding of the Bible's own emergent conceptualization of God is combined with Marcus Borg's book, Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written, a new way of reading all Scripture was opened up to me. I was better able to maintain my science-based worldview while also maintaining a form of "spirituality" through biblical scholarship and authors like Spong and Borg. For I could entertain the concept of a mysterious Divine Presence (as the Ground of Being) while being rational and scientific through the paradigms of Borg and Spong.

I have read nearly every book and listened to nearly every lecture or sermon by John Spong and Marcus Borg; which has greatly affected my own point of view regarding my interpretations of Christianity and my own attempt to produce on this site what I call the Emergent Mormon Perspective.

Active LDS Members Who Hold Views Similar to My Own:

This site is for those like Bishop Stephen Fleming who had stopped believing in a historical Book of Mormon, but went on to spend over a decade as an active LDS member; even spending several years as a Mormon Bishop while not believing in a historical Book of Mormon. Fleming has a lot in common with John Spong and Marcus Borg in this regard.

There is also the LDS member Dan McClellan, who in the Mormon Stories episode #1803, makes a case for an academic type "thinking Mormon" staying LDS; and how they might think through various troublesome issues.

There are differences between these LDS thinkers and Borg and Spong of course, but what I have found is that many deeper thinking Mormons have lately begun to sound similar to Spong and Borg. For example, after reading many of the books by LDS members Terryl and Fionna Givens, I find that they present a theology which also aligns closely with Spong and Borg. Yes of course there are major differences between the Givens and Borg and Spong, but I think there are enough similarities and overlap for them to be kind of "kindred spirits" in my view.

So I began to realize that just as there are voices in Christianity like Spong and Borg, there were similar voices in Mormonism. So I made a document where I listed these more "theologically nuanced" Mormon voices: like J. Golden Kimball, Eugene England, Greg Prince, Leonard Arrington, Patrick Q. Mason, etc. For more LDS member's names see my document: The Many Faces of LDS Christianity & The Many Ways of "Mormoning."

This Site is for Both those Who Go to Church & Those Who Do Not Yet Still Want to Find Value in Mormonism as a Philosophy 

This site is not just for those seeking to reconstruct a nuanced spirituality in order to stay LDS like Stephen Fleming. This site is also intended for the those in a post-deconstruction phase as former-Mormons; who do not intend to ever attend the LDS Church again but who also want to find a way to not just be angry at the Mormon Church; but instead, learn to appreciate their Mormon heritage and ancestry (if they descend from Mormon Pioneers like I do); or who just want to see if there is a way to appreciate and value the philosophy of Mormonism from a non-orthodox (heterodox) point of view.

Note that, when interviewed by Carah Burrel on March 19, 2024, a Mormonism-defender named Kwaku El gives a similar position to my own on distinguishing between the "philosophy of Mormonism" and the various Latter Day Saint creeds, denominations and sects, and their differing doctrines and policies.

The person I did not intend to read (or expected to read) this website when composing it, was the happily content True Believing Mormon: who is happy bearing a traditional orthodox LDS testimony and always obeying the Brethren and aligning with whatever opinion they have without question: those who have never had a so-called "faith crisis" and have a metaphorical shelf in their head (where they place any questions or doubts far and away on an imaginary shelf); who have no interest or curiosity to truly investigate the truth claims of the LDS Church from a more rigorous historical and scientific epistemology. That type of "Devout Mormon" is not my intended audience.

For Those Reconstructing:

Again, my ideal audience is those who have already deconstructed the traditional LDS truth claims on their own before coming to this site, and who no longer believe in the traditional LDS narrative. Note that the prominent LDS historian Richard Bushman said the following in the YouTube video here at the 44 minute mark, back in June 12, 2016:

"I think that for the [LDS] Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The [LDS] Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change."

Many "scholarly" type Mormons have been making that change in narrative and this site fits that agenda of building a reconstructed narrative. So I am writing for those who have already questioned the traditional narrative that Richard Bushman has acknowledged is not true.

I am writing for those who wish to reconstruct after deconstructing nearly all their previous beliefs based on the former traditional/orthodox LDS narrative. For many people, this has meant maybe even questioning the existence of God and the other truth claims of the Bible. My Emergent paradigm does not require those who have become more skeptical, naturalistic, or nontheistic, to believe in anything beyond what they are rationally capable of believing in within a scientific paradigm. At most, the ideas on this site are meant to be explored and entertained as "possibilities."

I am writing for those who have gone through their justifiable "hurt and angry phase" after deconstruction, and are ready for a new stage of emotional processing through the option of reconstructing something positive to believe in and/or appreciate about Mormonism.

So rather than the anti-Mormonism type websites that seek to only deconstruct and criticize the Mormon Church and fail to appreciate it on any level; with this website I instead take the reader on a more pro-Mormon journey past a faith crisis by helping them see that there is more than just the one option or way to be Mormon and that exmormon atheistic nihilism is not the only option. In other words, my reader can instead construct a more positive and meaningful Marcus Borg type paradigm and then build upon that foundation a way to then appreciate Mormonism through my Emergent Mormon Perspective.

My agenda however is not to persuade all my readers to return to "full activity" in the LDS Church. For one can learn about my Emergent paradigm and come away better appreciating and valuing Mormonism as a "typological-philosophy" but still decide to never attend an LDS church service ever again. This site is simply for anyone wanting to appreciate and find value in Mormonism from a non-orthodox perspective, regardless of whether or not they decide to be a regular churchgoer or not. In other words, this website provides a way of interpreting LDS Scripture and LDS philosophy outside the traditional mainstream Brighamite/LDS point of view. So for a post-deconstruction former Mormon, who does not intend to return to the LDS Church as a churchgoer, this site might nevertheless provide a way for them to at least better appreciate and perhaps even find value in Mormonism from a more philosophical perspective. Or this site, again, may also be helpful to anyone wanting to stay LDS even though they doubt or question most or all of the LDS Church's truth claims.

My Starting Point: From the Rock Bottom, From Philosophical Nihilism and Then Moving Upward 

As covered above, my ideal reader is somebody who has already been through quite a bit of the deconstruction phase, including going down the rabbit hole and likely even entering into some form of philosophical nihilism; which is where philosophy ultimately leads you when you begin to question all supernatural claims and stick to reason and science. So I'm not beginning from the position of a supernatural believer on this website. I am starting from rock bottom philosophically speaking. I am starting with the assumption that my reader has questioned all things and as Thomas Jefferson put it, even questioning the existence of God. I then begin from the assumption that my reader has likely entered into the headspace of some form of philosophical nihilism. From there I present Joseph Smith not as somebody necessarily literally revealing the will of God, but more as a philosopher like Nietzsche (who was in his own way attempting to overcome the atheistic skepticism and nihilism of his day). Emergent Mormonism is thus intended to act in a similar way to Nietzsche's attempt to overcome passive-nihilism with his Dionysian Pantheism. 

I also see Jordan Peterson attempting to overcome atheistic nihilism with his own Nietzcheanish Christianity. So similar to Nietzsche and Jordan Peterson, what I ultimately intended to do with Emergent Mormonism is provide a path out of passive-nihilism, first for myself and to also help others who have entered into that often depressing frame of mind. Thus I provide a way out pessimistic nihilism but not through an appeal to the "supernatural" or "orthodoxy," but by providing instead a philosophically empowering worldview through interpreting Mormon Scripture more as an allegorical seedbed of potential personal empowerment through the Smith-Pratt Paradigm. 

So I start with the assumption that the reader has hit rock bottom "philosophically speaking," and has become at least somewhat nihilistic after their crisis of faith and deconstruction phase. As this is quite common in exmormon circles. I'm not starting with "Just read your Mormon scriptures and seek a 'burning in the bosom." My approach is way too respectful of my more intelligent readers and is thus way more sophisticated than that as I am writing more for the deeper thinking person. I am beginning with the ground level, from the philosophical state of some form of nihilism and building upwards from there toward at least a more active-nihilism and generative Great Health (as Nietzsche emphasized). I drew the following visual image to illustrate this:

Click on image to enlarge

I explain this visual above and passive versus active nihilism in more detail here. In brief, the Emergent Mormon Perspective presents a worldview or life orientating ethos that is meant to ideally help one overcome depressive degenerative forms of nihilism; by instead ideally producing something more psychologically empowering and uplifting, which can hopefully create a more generative and healthy physical response in the person. So that I'm not arguing for a "only true religion" or perfect theology, but a more species enhancing, species preserving, and personally empowering philosophical ethos through Emergent Mormonism.

Beyond Proving or Disproving Mormonism Based on Science and Instead Focusing More on Appreciating the Power of Tribal Belonging and Peoplehood

Why this website? Why the Emergent Mormon Perspective? Here is my main motivation for my Emergent view in bullet points:

• If you try to defend or prove Mormonism empirically through science, i.e. through the lens of scientific positivism, or methodological naturalism, I think you will most likely fail. 

• If you try to defend Joseph Smith and early Mormonism through a traditional, pacifist and docile saintly monastic Christian ethos or ideal, I think you will fail. 

• If you instead filter your perception of Mormonism through a more Nietzscheanish point of view (see my blog posts here on the subject), I think you will succeed at better appreciating Mormonism for what it is, a form of will to power. For example, seeing Joseph Smith as a self-creator and manifesting will to power, positions Joseph Smith as an organic force of will and artistic painter of new values: so that one can begin to perceive him and his theology beyond the narrow lens of seeing him only within a binary paradigm of seeing him only as either a saintly guru or villainous imposter. By moving from scriptural literalism to a more mythological view (as Joseph Campbell teaches), pre-1900 Mormonism can be seen as a species-empowering tribal typological-poetry: with Joseph Smith seen as attempting to form a quasi-ethnic tribal Mormon People via selective breeding (which I cover here), but not the breeding of future Supermen (as Nietzsche envisioned), but Supercouples. In other words, as someone with Mormon Pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family, as I see Mormonism less as a "belief system" and more as my cultural heritage which can be traced back to my Indo-European ancestors. Thus, I see myself as a "DNA Mormon." I see pre-1900 Mormonism as a quasi-ethnic tribal identity my ancestors contributed to creating and building into what Denver S. rightly calls a Peoplehood.

• Nietzsche’s vision was a revitalization of the life-affirming bodily instincts in the pre-Pauline Hebrew Bible (which he admired) and the Indo-European Spirit (from the heroic Norsemen to the Pre-Socratic Greeks); Joseph Smith can be seen as also affirming the biological procreative body which I cover here. From this more life-affirming perspective, I am better able to find value in Mormonism as at the very least a pro-body ethos, in contrast to anti-body ideologies. So that I see the growth of a Mormon Peoplehood like a healthy "plant body" in a garden sprouting forth and multiplying with lifeward vitality and flourishing as a ripe garden; so that Joseph Smith's "typological-poetry," can be appreciated for its potential energy for generating Great Health (despite it's occasional thorns and thistles). 

So this blog is about realizing that if a deeper thinking person with an inquisitive mind, seeks to investigate the truth claims of Mormonism objectively like a criminal detective, they will -- if they are completely honest and thorough in their investigation -- eventually come to realize that the traditional truth claims of the LDS Church (as contained in the LDS Church’s magazines and manuals) are difficult to defend under the bright spotlight of logical scrutiny and the preponderance of empirical evidence; leaving the sober thinking person to reach the more probable conclusion that it lacks consistent overwhelming evidence and logical consistency. However, if one instead seeks to find meaning and identity within Mormonism as a Tribe based on intergenerational belonging, as a Birthright through respecting and valuing one's Mormon Pioneer roots, then it's less of a Dogma and more of a Peoplehood; that is, a quasi-ethnic identity similar to how a Jew often feels about Judaism or an Egyptian might feel about the Egyptian mythos, or how a Norseman felt about Norse mythology, or a Persian might feel about Zoroastrianism, etc.

So what I attempted to do in this blog and my other writings is reorient my mind away from trying to prove LDS truth claims empirically and instead undergo a paradigm shift toward finding "truths" and value in Mormonism as an emerging life-philosophy that my own Mormon ancestors contributed to creating as a successful functional tribal ethos. For the bottom line is this, if you apply worldview naturalism (or metaphysical naturalism), known as positivism or empiricism, to the truth claims of Mormonism, I think you're going to realize that you cannot empirically defend or substantiate Brighamite Mormon truth claims at all. For the naturalistic explanations are simply more probable in my view than the supernatural explanations.

So for example, if you look at the Book of Mormon through the historical method, DNA studies, archeology, linguistics, etc., it becomes obvious to all non-biased, critical thinking persons and every non-LDS expert, that Smith was likely the sole author of the book; as the preponderance of evidence will point to a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. So it is going to look more like it is the product of Joseph Smith's creative imagination the more one looks at it objectively. This is actually what many deep thinking LDS scholars themselves think in private, in that while they remain open-minded about there actually being real Lamanites, they willingly admit that clearly a lot of the Book of Mormon content is from the imagination of Joseph Smith himself. For example, senior research fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Terryl Givens, has presented his own take on how Joseph Smith broke away from Calvin and John Edwards and other's ideas that had slipped into his production of the Book of Mormon through his subconscious (based on LDS philosopher Blake Ostler's Expansion Theory of the Book of Mormon (that posits that much of the Book of Mormon was produced by Smith himself and his creative imagination). Note that Ostler and Givens' books are sold at LDS Deseret bookstores. Givens basically thinks that Mormons need to learn to be more sophisticated in being able to sift out the Calvinist ideas in the Book of Mormon by reinterpreting the Calvinist sounding verses in light of Joseph Smith's later theological innovations developed after 1830. For example, see Givens' brief comments here from a September 2020, U.K. LDS Fireside.

Evolving Toward a Pro-Body Ethos

Part of why I formed the Emergent Mormon Perspective as a way of interpreting Mormonism more as a philosophy through a cultural-evolutionary lens, is because most LDS scholars themselves think this way in one degree or another. It is obvious that Mormon ideas developed and evolved incrementally over time from 1829 to 1844 (as seen through Joseph Smith's sermons and scriptural productions); note that even some traditional LDS scholars agree with this to a certain degree, for example see Precept Upon Precept: Joseph Smith and the Restoration of Doctrine by Robert L. Millet. The Emergent View is a way of thus seeing how Joseph Smith himself changed his mind over time, as covered comprehensively by retired BYU Professor Charles R. Harrell in his book This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology. Also see this book sold at Deseret Bookstores and online, titled The Revelations of Joseph Smith Jr. – The Chronological History of the Restoration as Recorded in his Journal – Annotated Edition by David Hocking.

Now the staunch critic of Mormonism sees this only as a negative, a way to criticize and condemn Mormonism; but I turn it into a positive by granting the changing and evolving theology of Mormonism by noticing that it follows a consistent pro-body trajectory from 1830 to 1844, moving toward affirming biological life just like Nietzsche promoted. So I acknowledge that one can see that it is clear from the evidence that as Joseph Smith learned new things and grew in experience, his theological philosophy began to further emerge out of (or away from) the cultural soil of anti-body forms of Gnosticism, Augustinianism, and Puritanism; as he instead grew towards a more naturalistic (pro-material/physicalist) body-affirming theological philosophy: which I cover in greater detail in my thesis document linked here, which covers Joseph Smith's emerging advancement toward a positive theology of the Healthy Body.

The Emergent paradigm thus sees everything in Mormonism emerging or developing over time through the creative mind and life of Joseph Smith from 1829 to 1844; with 1840s Nauvoo Era Mormonism being the pinnacle "high point" of development toward a more humanistic life-affirming theology of the body; with all the ideas and theological positions that Joseph Smith came to by 1844 being the standard foundation of Mormonism as his most mature theological philosophy; which can be better appreciated through the Emergent Mormon Perspective.

From the Emergent Mormon Perspective, Joseph Smith's emerging ideas over time can be seen moving toward a more life-affirming theo-philosophy by the 1840s; so that all previous more Calvinist and "Edwardsian" sounding ideas in Smith's scriptural productions prior to the 1840s, are in my mind reinterpreted through the Lens of Smith's canonized Scripture in 1844. So that pre-1840s LDS Scriptures are to be read in light of the final post-1840 Scriptures: which contain a more pro-body philosophy and more humanistic ideas, as Smith's teachings and revelations emerged from his intellectual studies and his change of mind over time: based on his continuous self education and philosophizing in for example the School of the Prophets alongside the self-educated teacher Orson Hyde. That is in short summary the Emergent Mormon Perspective.

Seeing Joseph Smith Beyond the Lens of "Perfect Saint"

As I see it, if you try to apply the traditional Christian ideal of a "saint" or overly meek and docile type of Christian man, and then try to transpose those pious ideals onto Joseph Smith, you are going to be greatly disappointed. If instead you interpret Joseph Smith's actions through a more Nietzscheanish point of view, with Smith as a kind of "higher man," a volcanic eruption of instinctual energy breaking through the concrete slabs of sectarian body-despising dogmas like a lifeward plant body breaking through a concrete sidewalk; then Smith can be better appreciated as all too human yet a will to power. Thus I have moved toward seeing Smith not as a perfect pious saint or even the ideal role model in all facets of his life, but instead I see him as perhaps a necessary cultural phenomenon in an evolving process toward creating a more pro-body ethos.

Valuing One's LDS Heritage as an Intergenerational Tribe

So is there a way to defend Mormonism and bolster one's loyalty to their Mormon ancestry and LDS heritage? I think there is, and this is what I have attempted to do in this blog and in my other Google site. I have found that if you stop trying to paint Joseph Smith as the perfect Saint and stop seeing the rise of Mormonism as a top-down completely and infallibly divinely inspired system and everything having transpired exactly how the LDS Church describes it in it's pamphlets and manuals; and instead change your worldview to embrace nuance and evolutionary development, you will begin to better appreciate the organic growth and vitality of the rise of Mormonism as a Peoplehood

Instead of seeing original Nauvoo era Mormonism as a mere “belief system,” one can better appreciate original Mormonism, when one realizes that what Joseph Smith was actually doing with his theological innovations and religion-making genius was creating a more empowering tribal self-esteem and noble identity for European Americans by declaring them Ephraimites; who don't need to have their genes swapped out, but instead my European and American ancestors were given by Smith a more noble tribal identity with the elevated status of gathering the other Israelite tribes in America; with Joseph restoring the Indo-European and Hebrew Bible heroic type through his Book of Mormon characters. When I better understood and appreciated this (which I cover in this blog series), I was better able to appreciate my European Mormon ancestors and what Mormonism has grown into today as a tribal people. This may not mean one becomes a “true believer” in any particular LDS sect, but they can at least grow to better appreciate what Joseph Smith was trying to do in creating a Tribe, a Peoplehood.

Of course I realized that this interpretive perspective is not going to work for everyone. I am specifically narrowing my focus at times to Mormons with European Pioneer ancestry like myself. I'm also aware that the LDS Church is becoming a more global Church and more ethnically diverse than it originally was; and thus it is becoming less tribal and more universalist and mainstream, and I am not against that. This is mainly my attempt to appreciate my Mormon ancestors and my own upbringing in the Mormon Community, and the Mormon identity that was instilled in me, embedded in my psyche, from childhood; much like a Jewish person retaining their Jewish cultural identity even if they doubt all or most of the doctrines of Judaism. So this is simply one perspective, one way, my way of interpreting Mormonism; and is not an attempt to convince anyone else to this one perspective, my perspective.

This is also not an attempt to promote ethnocentrism or return to original Mormonism when it was more tribal. I completely endorse the LDS Church's attempt to be more global and universalist, more inclusive and ethnically diverse etc. There is a difference between appreciating and respecting your Indo-European ancestry and heritage (which I cover here) and wishing to go back to those times pre-1900. I simply appreciate pre-1900 Mormonism but don't desire the LDS Church to go back to those times and practices. The way I see it, Christianity itself originated as an ethnically Jewish movement with most of the first members of the Jesus Movement being ethnically Jewish; but then it expanded to include more non-Jewish Gentiles through the revelations of the apostle Paul. So too, Mormonism originates with mostly Europeans, those who were mostly British, German and Scandinavian, as a kind of quasi-ethnic tribe in the beginning; but as the Smith Movement expanded it became a more global religion just like Christianity expanded from out of a Jewish ethnic lineage to include Gentiles. So I see Mormonism in a similar way, so that I can appreciate the quasi-ethnic identity of the first "Ephraimite Mormons," who were mostly ethnically Europeans and formed the main body of the Brighamite Church pre-1900; but also appreciate the LDS Church's growth today as it is becoming a more ethnically diverse and global phenomenon.

What Makes This Site Unique and Different?

Most websites on Mormonism are either pro-LDS are anti-LDS. Those that are pro-LDS try to maintain and sustain traditional faith-based positions, like a belief in historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. Those sites produced by ex-Mormons are usually overly critical and see almost everything in the Mormon Church as negative and unredeemable. This site is different. I am attempting to redeem what is good in my Mormon Pioneer heritage and chart a middle way path, a way to not ignore the overwhelming evidence against the supernatural truth claims of the LDS church, but also not be overly negative and cynical and anti-faith-promoting. Instead, I have tried to chart a third alternative (as Stephen Covey puts it), by providing a way to be quasi "faith-promoting" or better put "pro-ancestors promoting," from a different perspective. By this I mean I intend to build an appreciation for and understanding of the Mormonism which my own European ancestors contributed to building and creating: seeing it as a powerfully successful typological-poetry through the perspectival lens of mostly Frederick Nietzsche and Marcus Borg.

What I have basically done is attempt to appreciate and find value in Mormonism from the perspective of even someone who has completely dismantled the traditional "LDS testimony" and does not consider any of the supernatural claims true. In other words, I am writing to the reader who does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, who believes that Joseph Smith himself as a creative writer composed the Book of Mormon himself. I'm writing to the person who does not think that the Egyptian funeral scrolls that Joseph Smith claimed to translate into the book of Abraham is an actual translation in any real sense whatsoever but the scrolls were simply a springboard for Smith's own imaginative creativity. I'm writing for the person who does not think that Joseph Smith walked out of the Grove in 1820 immediately believing in a plurality of Gods or that he saw to physical embodied individuals. What I have attempted to do is take every criticism, every "fact" that the exmormon likely believes and simply grant it and then still find value in Mormonism as a philosophical worldview.

So what makes this blog site unique and different I think, is that I'm taking the most troublesome aspects of Mormonism that causes a so-called faith crisis, and I'm turning these "bugs" into a feature. For example, rather than members being afraid to learn about the first vision versions, and LDS apologist trying to cover things up with attempts to harmonize the differing versions, I turn the differing Vision versions as a positive affirmation of the emergent nature of Mormonism. I do this with every other troubling issue, from polyandry to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, turning this bug into a feature, by arguing that Joseph Smith was indeed creating an Americanized version of the Gospel which is what I actually like about the book, so that any of Smith's American surroundings he absorbed and filtered into the Book of Mormon becomes for me a feature and not a bug from the emergent Mormon perspective. 

What my blog site does then is turn formally perceived negatives into potential positives, providing for someone with Pioneer Mormon Heritage, a way to feel liberated from the fearful phobia of reading anything deemed "anti," by presenting a perspective where one could even read Sandra Tanner's book Shadow or Reality or Letter to My Wife or the CES Letter, and not be troubled by the information at all; because it will only affirm the emergent Mormon perspective. So what I have done is provide a perspective that for me is "critic proof." So anyone who embraces this perspective, they can potentially never learn anything about Mormonism that will cause them to spiral into a state of confusion or angst because they will only expect what they will find in any literature critical of Mormonism. 

This perspective is in my opinion the best way to appreciate your Mormon Pioneer heritage when one tends to question or doubt the traditional LDS narrative. It is in my view, the best way to inoculate critical thinking members from any future states of depression and lost when the traditional narrative becomes impossible to believe for inquisitive minds like mine.

So this is not an attack on the Brighamite LDS Church nor an apologetic defense of the traditional LDS narrative, but a kind of third alternative, a way to appreciate Mormonism from a more naturalistic and secular perspective. In other words, I'm not trying to defend the Church through an appeal to supernaturalism but instead I'm coming at it from a completely different angle, from the position of agreeing with all of the secular scholarship on Mormon history and then building from the ground up a more rational "unconventional testimony" as to the value of the Mormon Philosophy. By "testimony" I mean attesting to the value of Mormonism and appreciating it as a naturalistic typological-poetry from a non-supernatural secular perspective. In other words, this is not like other sites by LDS apologetics or exmormon sites, this is something different, I think unique: where I peer behind the curtain at Mormonism but instead of seeing "nothing of value" I see something interesting and useful philosophically, and a way to appreciate Mormonism from a more Nietzscheanish perspective.

Of course this site is obviously not for the Church-going True Believer who has never had a crisis of faith and has no intellectual curiosity whatsoever and is completely content obeying their leaders without question. 

Descriptive, Not Prescriptive

This website is also only meant to be descriptive, as a theory and an optional interpretive lens, and is not meant in any way as a prescription on how to be LDS for everyone. This site is not meant as the way on how everyone should practice or think about Mormonism. I am only describing a theory one can hold in their head among many other possibilities in the possibility space of their mind. So for example, when I discuss 1800s plural marriage as being a body-affirming practice, I am not in any way endorsing or prescribing the practice of polygamy today, but only describing a way to appreciate the past for what it was and one reason why it was practiced in the 1800s.

Shorter Summaries on the Emergent-Mormon Paradigm:

Quick note before I continue, this introduction is a longer treatment of what this blog is about and my journey to how I developed the Emergent Mormon Perspective. For a quicker and shorter summary of the Emergent Mormon philosophy see these links below:

• Emergent-Mormonism's Core Views (Summarized in Bullet Points)

• The Case for Honoring your Mormon Heritage: Why I'm Culturally-Mormon (and Not Catholic or Protestant)

• Reading Mormon Scripture through the Smith-Pratt Lens

• The "Spirit of Nauvoo Era Mormonism" & The Emergent-Mormon Paradigm 

All these links above are good short summaries of Emergent-Mormonism, but perhaps the best one that fully encapsulates my understanding or how I see or interpret LDS scripture, is through the Smith-Pratt Paradigm: which represents the combined philosophical worldview of Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt and the Pro-American "Mormon Jesus" of LDS Scripture, as the interpretive Lens (or hermeneutic) I use to interpret all LDS scripture and theology.

For more on the Emergent-Mormon approach to interpreting LDS scripture see:

• The Meaning of Emergent Mormonism as Midrash & Scriptural Art (Blog Series)