I want to begin by saying up front that this isn't an attempt to encourage any LDS member to stop going to church or adopt this way of being Mormon. As I write this in 2026, I have been out of the church for over a decade and have gone through various phases: from being an ex-mormon atheist to trying to be some other version of a Christian; and what I've come to realize is that I am at my core both intellectually and culturally a Mormon. For example, see my bullet points here on why I am a Mormon and not a Catholic or Protestant or an Atheist, etc.
This introductory post is meant to clarify that I'm only presenting this way of being Mormon as an option for those for whom it works for them. For those who are happy and content and thriving in any Mormon restoration branch or denomination, whether it be the Brighamite sect or RLDS, etc., I fully support and endorse their activity and have no desire to discourage their participation or even their tithe paying.
I thought about calling myself an Edgy Mormon based on Christian Kimball's book Living on the Inside of the Edge. I like his approach of maintaining his Mormon identity and participating in his ward, which I too am open to doing and found his advice useful. But I choose not to use that term "Edgy Mormon" from his book because unfortunately in my opinion he goes too far in his book in the direction of over focusing on extreme far-Left political ideology. Being someone who is more politically independent and often "center right" depending on the issue, and my agreeing more with the core principles, values and ideals of the LDS Proclamation of the Family, I just don't feel right using that term Edgy Mormon because I don't want to be inaccurately defined as being on the political far-Left. So a more neutral term for me is Non-denominational, Independent, and/or Free-range Mormon.
Why do I even bother identifying as Mormon? Well first of all because, as I explain here, it's in my DNA as my heritage and my its my quasi-ethnic cultural identity.
I have tried out other worldviews or existential or spiritual paths, and Mormonism fits my beliefs and ideals best. As of 2026, I have begun to engage in a form of Mormon spiritual practice where I enjoy learning more about my Mormon Pioneer ancestors. I am currently listening to a Modern English version of the Book of Mormon and I am reading the Doctrine and Covenants in Plain English by Ben Kucenski. In other words, I have made reading Mormon Scripture part of my spiritual practice which gives me peace and comfort and existential security that is working for me right now. I also like hanging out with most Mormons. I listen to Mormon podcasts like Ward Radio. I enjoy studying biblical scholarship and LDS history.
I personally don't think being Mormon requires your name is on the roles of any particular denomination. After all, I'm related to Oliver Cowdery and he resigned his membership and went on to even join a Methodist congregation and yet he retained his Mormon identity and belief structure for about a decade before he rejoined the Brighamite sect just before he died. So was Oliver not a Mormon during that decade when his name was not on the roles of the Brighamite sect? No, I don't think so. Oliver remained a "Mormon" all that time. So while I respect and admire Brighamite Mormons for being loyal and dedicated to that particular denominational institution, I don't think my name on any church roles determines whether or not I am Mormon or not. I decide that, or at least my core beliefs, values, ancestry, and character does.
I am writing to those who have chosen not to obey the current policies in the Brighamite LDS Manuals. Those who have, as Christian Kimball describes in his book, differentiated from a parent-to-child dynamic and a codependent mentality than can occur among some (no not all) LDS members. But those who also do not want to go down the road of being "anti-Mormonism" and abandon their Mormon heritage entirely. So a "third option" is what I'm calling Independent-Mormonism (or Free-Range Mormonism) which is basically a nondenominational way to be Mormon. Interestingly, someone even published a Nondenominational Edition of the Book of Mormon (see video here).
Merriam-webster's online dictionary includes in their definition of the word free-range the following:
Like a lighthouse, this parenting style provides a stable source of guidance without being over-involved, as seen with helicopter parenting, or too hands-off, like with free-range parenting.
—Alex Vance, Parents, 21 Dec. 2025
Some people like to be micro-managed, and if that’s you, then a free-range environment is not good for you.—
Susan Johnston, Rolling Stone, 27 June 2024
Using these definition examples above, I think this captures the core difference in personality and worship style between those who feel comfort being essentially "helicopter parented" by an over-involved religious leadership telling one what to eat and drink, what to wear, do or not do on Sundays, and how much to pay them, etc. Some people like to be micro-managed by their religion, and if that’s you, then a free-range Mormon option would not be good for you.
As a free-range Mormon, I feel free to range over and explore all opinions in any Mormon sect or group. I can take advice from a Brighamite leader but also freely reject their advice if it doesn’t align with scripture or my values. I can attend a Brighamite ward one Sunday and have a coffee the next Sunday morning with a non-mormon friend. I a free to use the term "Mormon"!
I am free to range over and read a Modern English translation of the Book of Mormon or read the LDS version online. I am free to range over to an RLDS church service or social activity somewhere as well as a Brighamite ward or social activity. For all the Restoration branches and movements are part of my Mormon Heritage and part of my quasi-ethnic Mormon identity.
A key component of Independent-Mormonism (or Free-Range Mormonism) is distinguishing between the "philosophy of Mormonism" versus the different LDS sects, as articulated well by Kwaku El in his discussion with Carah Burrel in 2024 (seen here). My own personal version of Independent Mormonism is a focus on the original philosophy of Mormonism through primarily the Smith-Pratt Lens. As I see it, one's LDS heritage and that grounding Smith-Pratt philosophy is independent of the differing denominational corporate policies of the differing LDS denominations.
Another key component of Independent (Free-range) Mormonism is the emphasis on Scripture-focused Mormonism, which I discuss here.
Scripture-focused Peoplehood & Not Sola Scriptura and Creedalism:
The way I see it, the LDS Scripture Cannon contain some Protestant sounding doctrines and ideas, but the emphasis on living oracles akin to the revelatory Moses and the apostle Paul, as an open canon, and gathering the tribes of Israel, and deification (through grace through the merits of Christ alone) makes Mormonism unique and not just another version of Protestantism.
I am "Mormon" and not Protestant because I don't see any reason to justify a "closed cannon," and I value many of the teachings and revelations through Joseph Smith and his Americanized version of Christianity. I appreciate and value the innovations in theology and practice, that turned Mormonism into something closer to ancient Israel "tribally," and closer to Eastern Orthodox Christianity in hierarchical structure and theosis theology.
The Heavens Aren't Closed, But the LDS Cannon is Full
As they say history tends to repeat itself, and as I see it every so often there emerges a unique individual with the talent and creativity and the means to reveal the Divine Realm through their particular personality and culture. I believe that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible had that talent, as well as the Apostle Paul, and so did Joseph Smith. Just like the Cambrian explosion in organic evolution, I think there are times in history when there's a spiritual explosion of revelatory innovation, midrash, and scripture-making; like the Moses-like figures in the Bible or the Apostle Paul, and then things peter out and the revelations slow down, and not that the heavens are closed but the cannon has become full, i.e. there is sufficient revealed truths to proceed as is with the scriptures we have. So then there is more of a guardianship of those canonized revelations that always takes place historically. We saw that with Jesus defending the authority of the Torah as he only added to scripture new ways of interpreting former texts. Then Paul exploded on the scene as a midrash master innovator. Then all of sudden the cannon was full, Jesus and Paul had filled the spiritual cup of the people it seems, and so then was formed the New Testament Canon and a lack of revelatory voices followed for two thousand years. Then Joseph Smith burst onto the scene revealing new scripture which was then cannonized as the LDS Standard Works; and then once again a slowing down of revelation and new scripture occurred after Joseph was killed, so that future Mormon Leaders became mere guardians of the revelations rather than offering new revelations like Joseph did. So that today, as I see it, the LDS cannon is full and sufficient for our good; and so there's been a lack of revelation for two hundred years because we have sufficient scripture to guide ourselves by wisdom and personal revelation by the dictates of our own conscience.
Plural Marriage Fulfilled It's Purpose of forming a Quasi-Ethnic Tribe by 1900
In my document Toward A Theology of the Body and my blog series here, I make the case that the early LDS priesthood hierarchy, provided a structure that would eventually bolster the practice of polygamy; which I think had a temporary goal and design to it: which was to change the consciousness of Mormons (from 1844 to 1900) toward embracing the idea that God the Father had a physical body of flesh which belief made sensuality and passions godly again. In my view, the process of basically mimicking the biblical polygamists Abraham, Jacob and David in the Old Testament, my own LDS ancestors produced a quasi-ethnic Peoplehood. I think this was the main reason for LDS polygamy and you can see the fruits of my Mormon Pioneer ancestors in the quasi-ethnic tight knit Mormon communities you can see and experience that are thriving today. In contrast, when I have attended Protestant churches they do not give me that feeling of being part of a quasi-ethnic tribe, a people (that I feel among all the LDS sects I have visited and spent time with), because these Protestants focus more on "beliefism" and their Creeds and lack what Mormons have, a feeling of tribal cultural identity and Peoplehood that forged in Missouri, Nauvoo and then Utah, etc.
So after my "faith crisis" and not agreeing with all the tenets of any of the LDS sects, as I write this today in 2026, I choose to still be Mormon but in my own way. I am happier being an independent Mormon instead of being a cynical and nihilistic exmormon atheist.
I choose to see the mostly good in Mormonism, both philosophically and culturally. My own Pioneer ancestors in Nauvoo and Utah in the 1800s formed a tribal Peoplehood and I feel good being part of that "tribe," even if only independently on the perimeter. For I am a product of this identity formation as my own Mormon Pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family practiced plural marriage and funnelled my Anglo-Scandinavian nature and cultural history into the making of the Mormon People.
As an Independent Mormon I respect and appreciate my own ancestors practicing of plural marriage and what that accomplished. But I also don't need to literally believe in polygamy if I don't want to. The fact is D&C 132 was never actually canonized by Joseph Smith himself. In fact, just before Smith died in 1844, he edited and approved of a final canon of LDS Scripture in 1844 that did not include the D&C 132 while he re-edited and re-cannonized the 1835 D&C 101 and the Lectures on Faith. This to me shows that Joseph Smith was simply exploring ideas in the 1840s, and we don't know what he would or would not have done if he had survived after 1844. All we know for certain is that what he decided to canonize as official doctrine was the theology in the original LDS Scriptures, for example the 1835 Lectures on Faith and the original 1835 D&C 101 (that declared monogamy the official doctrine of the LDS Church).
When Joseph Smith was alive, D&C 89 on the Word of Wisdom was not practiced as a "commandment or constraint." All of this changed after 1900, when in 1921 the top LDS Leaders removed the original doctrine of the Lectures on Faith; and being influenced by the temperance movement and Prohibition in the 1900s, the Brighamite Brethren changed the original meaning of section 89 by making the Word of Wisdom a commandment and constraint on the membership after 1921.
Defining Correlated Manualism in contrast to Independent Mormonism:
Since a picture is worthless 1000 words, here is an image summarizing what I call Correlated Manualism:
I agree with all the words in the diagram above individually, except the word "obey." Note that in the image above the "Doctrine of Christ" is basically defined as obeying the Correlated Manuals (with the phrase "repent and obey"), with repenting meaning: subjecting oneself to "worthiness" interviews where a Correlation approved male Priest, a Bishop and/or Stake President acting as judge and jury over you behind closed doors, determines your worthiness (perfect purity) or unworthiness (impurity); as you are labeled as such (essentially pure or stained in their eyes); and if labeled "unworthy," one is subjected to whatever humiliating and punitive ecclesiastical punishments the priesthood holder decides to impose upon you based on his subjective assessment and personality type. Correlated Manualism is thus linked to Perfectionism and Purity Culture.
The Correlated View emphasizes exclusive Temple rites, with the Brighamite Brethren claiming to be the only ones with the authority to control and change the rituals. They also control what is and what is not considered scripture without regard to the original doctrine of Common Consent. In Correlated Manualism, there is demanded large amounts of money (tithing) from members as mandatory before the member is allowed to enter and receive the ritual ordinances which are said to be required to enter the highest degrees of heaven. Thus the Correlated Manual model of "obey us or else," entails receiving their allegedly necessary ritual ordinances in order to be able to enter through the "pearly gates" (with angels standing guard), before experiencing God the Father. As they claim to have the sole authority to administer these necessary rituals to get into the highest degree of heaven. This is just one version of Mormonism. I am arguing that there are other versions of Mormonism that are not "high demand religions," but provide a greater degree of freedom based on the dictates of one's own conscience (rather than blind obedience to the dictates of the will and whims of any Brethren in any of the LDS sects).
Free-Range (Independent) Mormonism" vs. Correlated Manualism:
A good example of Independent Mormonism is the more simplistic Doctrine of Christ in the Book of Mormon as explained by Jacob IsBell in his YouTube video The Doctrine of Christ versus The Covenant Path. Note that I don't agree with every historical or theological position of Jacob IsBell, but on this particular subject I agree with him.
For more details on the concept of the simple Doctrine of Christ and how it relates to Free-Range Mormonism, see my two blog series below:
Here is a bullet point summary of how Uncorrelated Free-Range Mormonism is different from Correlated Manualism:
- Free-Range Independent Mormonism (or FIM) is more like a Farm-like "Ecclesia" than a caged Zoo.
- FIM is focused more on a respect for LDS Scripture as poetic art as a transformative Ethos. So that it is more about an inside out transformation of character by "feasting on the words of Christ" in Scripture. Rather than following a check list.
- In FIM, decisions are based more on the dictates of one's own conscience rather than just obeying the will of the leaders of a Restorationist Denomination.
- FIM respects the Law of Common Consent. This means that no Mormon sect can declare new doctrine or policy or "Thus saith the Lord" without claiming to have received an actual revelation and having it voted on and passed by common consent and then canonized in Scripture by the body of believers in said sect.
- FIM abides by the actual LDS Scriptures which taught paying tithing on your surplus and it is voluntary and not mandatory to go the temple and earn access to the celestial heavens.
- Garments are optional and not necessary. For in the Independent Mormon perspective, LDS Garments were designed to be reminders of the Freemasonic rituals (like the penalty oaths that were removed in 1990 from the Brighamite LDS ritual), which in and of themselves were designed to keep polygamy a secret. Now that polygamy has ended after about 1900, garments, as a product of polygamy, makes no sense as a requirement by a Restorationist Denomination. However, if one chooses to wear them voluntarily without threat of losing their Temple recommend for example, I fully support that.
- The Word of Wisdom in D&C 89 was originally intended as "wise advice" and the text says clearly that it was not a commandment nor a constraint. Thus, when the Brighamite LDS sect decided to reject the original plain meaning of D&C 89 in the year 1921, and turn the advice of the Word of Wisdom into instead a commandment (and something forbidden by the Brighamite Brethren), and made it into a constraint on LDS members: they began to mimic the corruption in the Catholic Church, which led to the Protestant Reformation. This authoritarian and controlling move also mimicked the Pharisees who Jesus condemned for changing the meaning of the Jewish Scriptures with their added traditions and policies.
Note that another option to the person who rejects Correlated Manualism but doesn't want to be a Nondenominational Mormon is that one can choose to be part of a non-Brighamite Restoration Church as there are many sects and denominations.
In conclusion, my goal in this introductory post is to help those having a crisis of faith and no longer wish to attend the Brighamite sect, by showing how they have options and exmormon atheism is only one of those options. They don't need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," they can maintain their cultural identity and Mormon heritage and appreciate the Mormon philosophy and Scriptures on their own terms as an Independent Mormon mormon. To be clear, I am not encouraging the active and happy LDS member (in any of the LDS denominations) to become an Independent Mormon, this is only for those who have already experienced a crisis of faith but want to hang on to their tribal identity as a Mormon.
