Insights from The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) on Body-Affirming LDS Christianity

 Here I will document some key insights from The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) and how that relates to this blog series on Abrahamic Expansionism. 

Pluck "Him" out (not your eye):

The following is from The Joseph Smith Translation by Kenneth and Lyndell Lutes; the words in bold and strikeouts document the changes Joseph Smith made in his translation (while he was using the KJV as his template):

Mark 9: 

39  [verse 42 in KJV] And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

40 [verse 43 in KJV] And Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.

41 [verse 43–44 in KJV] For it is better for thee to enter into life without thy brother, than for thee and thy brother to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

42 [verse 45 in KJV] And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.

43 [verse 45-46 in KJV] It is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 

46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another. 

… 46 [KJV 47] And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck it him out. 

47 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 

48 For it is better that thyself should be saved, than to be cast into hell with thy brother, where their worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched.

Some say that the literal reading of this verse in translations like the KJV led to some early Christians to actually remove body parts to try and subdue their bodily drives. The fact that Joseph Smith was inspired to modify this verse to mean not plucking out one's eye but to instead mean seeing that one's brother acts as your eye; and so you should pluck him out. This is not only a good correction of the body-despising tradition which entered into Mark's gospel through the ascetic tradition of the time (that of advocating celibacy); but Joseph Smith also adds an important teaching that if someone's not guiding you down the right path, to "pluck them out" from your friendship circle, so as to avoid them leading you down the wrong path.

The Kingdom of Heaven as Selecting for Good Fathers with Civilizing Ideas, Upright Behavior Habits & a Receptive Child-like Attitude Passed Down from the Lineage of Patriarchal Fathers projected onto the Father God-idea that encapsulates Healthy Fatherhood and Tribal Fairness, Unity and Civility:

The Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven) as the Reign of an Orderly Father-God's Civilizing Ideas, Upright Behavior Habits & a Receptive Child-like Attitude to Fatherly Direction: Based on a History of Encoded Fatherly Traits and a Way (Logos) passed down from an Ancient Lineage of Patriarchal Fathers; projected onto the Father God-idea that encapsulates Healthy Fatherhood and Tribal Fairness, Unity and Civility:

From The Kingdom of Heaven: The Kingship of the High Beyond (words in brackets my own):

… Speaking linguistically, the Greek word translated as "kingdom" means that which is controlled by a central authority. It is generally the rule of kings, but it was also applied to the Archon of Athens, who was elected. It can mean the place that is ruled, the people who are ruled … It can mean the capital city of an empire or the ruler's castle. Our English word "basilica," meaning the seat of power for a bishop comes from this word. Generally, it refers to the concept of hereditary rule, the passing of authority from one generation to the next. [Scripturally, the Father God is passing on His Divine DNA through the genus of Christ that is freely gifted to the Christian. In the language of Jordan Peterson:

Part of the concept of God that underlies the Western ethos is the notion that whatever God is is expressed in the truthful speech that rectifies pathological hierarchies, that isn't all it does, it also confronts the chaos of being itself and generates habitable order, that's the metaphysical proposition, and that's best conceptualized as at least one element of God; and so I would think about it as a transcendent reality that's only observable across the longest of time-frames.

Okay, so here's some propositions and they're complicated and they need to be unpacked so I'm just going to read them and that'll have to do for the time being.

God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence of an action of consciousness across time; as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time-frames but are not necessarily apprehensible as objects in the here and now.

So what that means in some sense is that you have conceptions of reality built into your biological and metaphysical structure that are a consequence of processes of evolution that occurred over unbelievably vast expanses of time and that structure your perception of reality in ways that it wouldn't be structured if you only lived for the amount of time that you're going to live and that's also part of the problem of deriving values from facts because you're evanescent and you can't derive the right values from the facts that portray themselves to you in your life-span which is why you have a biological structure that's like 3.5 billion years old.

So God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth. That's a fundamental element of the hero mythology. God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values; that's another way of looking at it. God is what calls and what responds in the eternal call to adventure. God is the voice of conscience. God is the source of judgment, mercy, and guilt. God is the future to which we make sacrifices and something akin to the transcendental repository of reputation. Here's a cool one if you're an evolutionary biologist. God is that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men.

So men arrange themselves into hierarchies and men rise in the hierarchy and there's principles that are accordant that determine the probability of their rise and those principles aren't tyrannical power, they're something like the ability to articulate truth and the ability to be competent and the ability to make appropriate moral judgements and if you can do that in a given situation then all the other men will vote you up the hierarchy so to speak and that will radically increase your reproductive fitness and the operation of that process across long expanses of time looks to me like its codified in something like the notion of God the Father.

It's also the same thing that makes men attractive to women because women peel off the top of the male hierarchy. The question is: 'what should be at the top of the hierarchy'? And the answer right now is tyranny as part of the patriarchy but the real answer is something like the ability to use truthful speech, let's say in the service of well-being and so that's something that operates across tremendous expanses of time and it plays a role in the selection for survival itself which makes it a fundamental reality].

Though it is consistently translated in the NT as "kingdom," we can think of it as a "dominion," "that which is under a central authority," "being controlled by a leader," or, more simply as "rule" or "reign." In English, the word that comes closest to this idea is that of a "kingship" since it includes both the realm, the authority, and the reign of a king.

However, the word translated as "king" is broader than our "king." The word always means that which is controlled by a specific person, a "basileus," which means "leader," "prince," "commander," or "king." …

The primary meaning of ouranos is "the sky," that is the vault above us when we look up. The blue sky, the clouds, the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars are all part of heaven. More generally, the word metaphorically means everything outside of our world. This is generally called the rest of the universe and "the universe" is another meaning of the word. The heavens especially include everything "above" our world both in a literal and figurative sense. The sky was the realm of the ethereal, the spiritual, and the absolute. The objects there were not earthly because they didn't fall to earth like the material stuff we know. They were thought to be closer to abstract ideas and universal ideals than material objects.

… we get from the Greek idea of "heaven" and "up in the sky." This "height" is very important to Christ in a philosophical sense and for much of his wordplay. Heaven is the realm of the highest concepts. It is beyond earth both in the sense of being physically out of reach and in the sense of being higher in the sense of superior.

The phrase, "realm of the stars," might capture more of the feeling since "stars" has a double meaning of the celestial objects and famous people. The region was the home of the "stars" of the period, for the Greeks, these were the gods, but for the Jews, it was the patriarchs and prophets. However, that would exclude the clouds, Sun, and moon, which were all also beyond earth. …

What is it "Like"

Christ offers many analogies ("parable" is the Greek word for analogy) for "the kingdom of the skies." … Christ says that the realm of the stars is like a merchant seeking fine pearls. Does this means that it is like the merchant or the search for pearls? The latter seems more likely. Another example is when Christ says it is like a king throwing a wedding feast. Again, though the subject of the sentence is the king, the comparison is to the complete picture: the king throwing a wedding for his son.

From these many analogies, however, we get a complex picture of the idea of the kingdom of the heavens.

… Is Heaven the Afterlife?

There are several statements that Christ made that seem to indicate that the “kingdom of heaven” is not merely the afterlife or the Christian community, but the entire social order of the world as established by God. For example, Christ said: Mat 11:12 “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.”

How does this statement make any sense of the kingdom of heaven is the afterlife or the community of believers? However, if the kingdom of heaven describes the worldly order of things, and that order changed with the coming of Christ, then it does make sense. After Christ’s coming, human society began to change: the meek began to inherit the earth. Those ruled by spirit were no longer totally dominated by those who ruled by violence. Today’s, though our world is far from perfect, this process is very far advanced compared with the ancient world. Today, those who are violent are much less successful than those who embrace more cooperative methods. Much of the world is ruled by consent rather than coercion. This results from our increased understanding of the world.

Christ refers many times to the afterlife as "eternal life" or "life everlasting." However, in none of these references does he equate it or even mention it in the context with "the kingdom of heaven" or even "heaven." When Christ talks about the "kingdom of heaven," he uses very different terms and analogies than he does when he talks about "life everlasting."

In the Gospels, "the kingdom of heaven" is described as many things--a growing tree, yeast in bread, a net that catches all fish, and a place of harvest that includes both weeds and wheat. At least part of what is meant is the last judgment, separating saints from sinners, but that is only a part of what is meant.

For example, if Christ was referring to the afterlife, how can the afterlife change in the way that Christ describes the kingdom of heaven? How can it start small and grow like a mustard seed? How does it get mixed through everything like the dough? This does describe the community of believers but specifically how they affect and change the worldly order arising from our increased understanding.

This kingdom is hidden, a secret. In Matthew 6:6, Christ departs from his usual formulation of describing God as the “Father in heaven” and instead describes Him as “Father in secret.” The Greek word is kryptos, which means “secret” or “hidden.” We cannot see the kingdom of heaven in our everyday lives, because we are too close to it. We see heaven by looking at the sky. The sky literally covers everything in the sense that we might say, “the big picture.” So the kingdom Christ talks about is a hidden, big picture of what is really going on. 

[It is the secret/hidden philosophical ideas of righteous patriarchy that grows healthy functional families and communities: where good men and fathers rule in a spirit of gentle persuasion (non-violent, non-manipulative methods of influence) and lead by noble example; reigning in industriousness, protecting and providing, while leading with kindness, caring-thoughtfulness, and win-win fairness. Rather than in a spirit of selfishness, greed, exploitation and violence].

The kingdom of heaven includes all types of people, but it makes a judgment filtering out the good from the bad. There is “a natural selection,” but only because God’s will works through nature. The hierarchy of the kingdom of heaven is important but it is something more than the mere judgment of men. … the "kingdom of heaven" may be a state of understanding. This is what Christ describes in Mark 12:34 "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

[Mark 12:34 - LOST IN TRANSLATION: 

The adverb "far" is only used twice by Jesus, once in a parable where he refers to a great distance. The word, however, refers both to far in space and time. Jesus is commenting here on the scribe repeating back to him what the two commandments from the Old Testament. The word "far" here when used about speaking means "to speak at length." So "not far" means "to speak concisely." The sense is that these two commandments summarize the Law and therefore describe the realm of the Divine. Source:

https://christswords.com/main/node/703]

According to Christ, the Universal Reign is:

Near or coming to all places and times. Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent [Re-Choose]: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matt. 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mysterious, but we can understand it. Matthew 13:11 Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

… Promotes both new and traditional values. Matthew 13:52 Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

How the Superiority of the Understanding Evolves

The universal rule starts small and grows big and has lots of room. Matthew 13:31 The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

It gets mixed through everything. Matthew 13:33 The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

There are secret keys to its control. Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Note: According to Binding and loosing - Wikipedia: "bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority." So Jesus is handing over the cultural power to permit or forbid that which will lead to the kingdom of heaven. According to gotquestions.org: 

Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. … The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed." … When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear: “Whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:19, Young’s Literal Translation). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, “Whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.”

Jesus taught that the apostles had a special task on earth. Their words of authority, as recorded in the New Testament epistles, reflect God’s will for the church."

From this perspective, permitting Kingdom-behavior and forbidding unrighteous behavior plants the cultural "seeds"of good habits, which produces the Kingdom on Earth like a small seed growing into a large tree. Who has lived in or visited a neighborhood or block or a city that has slowly degenerated due to anti-Kingdom ideas and philosophies leading to Fatherless homes, a disrespect of fathers in general, growing the "seeds" that sprout into dysfunctional families from selfishness, greed and exploitation; and so how much is it worth to them, like a pearl of great price, to leave that area and be in a better neighborhood or city?]

The Hierarchy of Understanding

There is a hierarchy among people under the universal rule [kingdom realm]. Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

[Those who do it and teach the kingdom-way are called the great in the kingdom's hierarchy.] Both those who break minor [ethical] commandments and teach others to do so can still be part of it. Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Matt 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

Humility makes you great under it. Matt 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Those who are In and Out of the Awareness of the Universal Reign

In Spirit: Matthew 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

In Spirit: Those who are hounded for [perfectly living the kingdom-way]. Matthew 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Out of Spirit: Those who aren’t better than [outdoing the] scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness [behavior] shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Out of Spirit (Those who are only praising Christ or God) & In Spirit (Those whose actions follow God’s will): Matthew 7:21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Very In Spirit:: Those who become like little children. Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 

Matt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Hard to Get In Spirit: The [super rich who cling to their wealth valuing money more than their family and making society better]. Matt 19:23 Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In Spirit: [Those who God orchestrates as teachers of the Way]. Matt 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard.

Out of Spirit: Those who have other priorities. Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, …

In Spirit: Those who are productive. Mat 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

In Spirit: Those who are vigilant and patient. Matt 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

Those who are out of Spirit want to keep others out of Spirit. Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites [play actors]! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

My Philosophical Journey Reconstructing My Emergent Mormon Worldview

I officially resigned my membership from the Utah-based Mormon church around 2004 and as of this writing in 2023 I have not rejoined the LDS Church. Since resigning around 2004, I have been on a philosophical and theological journey. Most of the time, from 2005 until now I have been a skeptic or an agnostic or atheist/nontheist. Yet, at one point I became existentially unfulfilled in my atheism and began attempting to re-establish my Christian faith-stance. I remember one key pivotal point in my rethinking my atheism, came after reading the book An Atheist Defends Religion. I then read through Progressive Christian authors like John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell, and Phyllis Tickle, among many others.

I realized that even as a analytical and skeptical person I was existentially and emotionally drawn to these Emergent and Progressive Christian authors and speakers. Over time, I then started to realize that the more scholarly enlightened Christianity of Rob Bell and Marcus Borg others, was simply doing "catch up" to to what Joseph Smith had the courage to say and do way back in the 1830s and 1840s. For example, Joseph Smith had already expressed his own version of Rob Bell's "love wins" by dealing with the cruel and inhumane dogma of eternal conscious torment in Doctrine and Covenants section 19: 13-20, section 76, and 137. Joseph had already clarified that it's okay to become wealthy in order to do good; and he emphasized what people today call the Social Gospel with his egalitarian vision of building Zion.

I also started to realize that many LDS authors and speakers were doing something similar to Brian McLaren's' A New Kind of Christianity. For example, Terryl and Fiona Givens' book The Christ Who Heals and All Things New strikes me as A New Kind of LDS Christianity, which I find very appealing.

I then discovered Jordan Peterson who offered the same insights I had learned earlier from Joseph Campbell (on the monomyth and the power of myth). I then read Dominion by the nontheist author Tom Holland (and listened to everything I could find of him on the subject of Christianity on YouTube); and learned that despite his personal skepticism/atheism, his defense and support of Christianity convinced me that Christianity was largely responsible for a moral revolution in ethics in the West, and Christianity is largely responsible for our belief in inalienable Rights and our cosmopolitan consciousness, that we all experience and enjoy today as ideally civilized citizens.

I then began to notice that others were experiencing the same or similar transition from atheism to Christian pragmatism, to then holding many beliefs and philosophical positions that match closest with Restored Christianity (Mormonism). One such example is Shawn McCraney, who after criticizing Mormonism for seven years then turned his critical thinking skills toward Orthodox/Traditional Christianity and pointed out many of its problems; and ended holding views that are similar to the LDS, like rejecting the Augustinian/Calvinist dogma of eternal conscious torment for thoughtcrimes; and he has called out those like Sandra Tanner who come from the Calvinist tradition and have a double standard when it comes to criticizing LDS Christianity (in that she fails to use the same critical thinking skills and historical analysis, that she uses on Mormonism, on the Catholic and Protestant Christian tradition).

During my journey I was a Buddhist for a time, but did not believe in reincarnation, but was a kind of secular Buddhist for a while. After reading a book on Stoicism as a life philosophy, that worked for me for a while. Then there were times I did not think or talk about religion or philosophy at all and tried to just live in the "present moment." I basically became a Epicurean for a time. Then I tried reconstructing my belief in Christianity which I document on my blog practical-fruition.blogspot.com. Over the years I learned from many different Christian philosophers and theologians, from the Eastern Orthodox Christian theologians who emphasize deification (theosis), to Rob Bell's Everything is Spiritual and his "love wins" to reading books by Marcus Borg, etc. All of this made me feel good about being Christian again.

Then, after feeling good about being a Christian again, I began to study early Christian martyrdom through the scholarship of Paul Middleton. I then studied biblical scholarship on the subject of the family, masculinity, and celibacy in the New Testament. I began to find it problematic that the New Testament really did not focus on one's retirement and family planning, but was by-and-large, emphasizing the ideal of celibacy and martyrdom with a mostly apocalyptic ("End-Times") mindset.

Then I sat down and read everything Nietzsche wrote and everything changed for me drastically after that. I realized that during my atheist phase that my secular humanism was grounded in shallow assertions that could not be justified. I have also realized since then that most agnostics and atheists have not really dealt with Nietzsche's arguments and his deconstruction of Truth, free will, and "atheist moralities" like secular humanism. I realized that a truly honest atheist who really takes atheism to its inevitable conclusions and wades through Nietzsche honestly will have to admit that secular humanism's assertions are an illusion and is actually based on Christian foundations.

Once I realized that according to atheism, belief in the soul or the very idea of us having a "self" (or personhood) and free will is an illusion, and the concept of Right and Wrong (or Good and Evil) is grounded in Christianity, I began to more fully appreciate the Bible; and so I began to reconstruct a Christian life stance after better realizing that I did believe in objective Right and Wrong and that we are a person, or a Self, and personhood is real to me.

As I visited many churches in my hometown and continued to investigate all the different options for practicing Christianity, theologically, philosophically and socially, and I began to realize after reading Nietzsche that there were for me many problems with most versions of Christianity; after reading books on early Christian martyrdom and books trying to help Christian men embrace their biological masculinity, I realized that the New Testament actually did not have a lot to say for modern Men in a competitive capitalist world. I began to realize that the message of the New Testament, while valuable and important, was largely presenting many ideas within a first century context of pacifism, asceticism, apocalypticism and martyrdom, due to being under Roman oppression. This was before ideas from the the Scientific Enlightenment and American democracy had emerged; and so there were limits to treating the New Testament as a fully practical Life Philosophy in the twenty first century.

I then began to explore early Mormonism when it first originated through Joseph Smith, apart from what Brigham Young and other Utah-based church leaders turned it into after Brigham Young. When I investigated the original sources and for example re-read The Lectures on Faith, which were the original doctrine of the LDS church and bound in Scripture in 1835, I realized the original LDS church was not as much "Leadership" focused but instead focused on empowering each individual to experience deification (theosis): producing a countenance of joy through a true inner Light-infused, refining transformation, and thus organically producing Zion from inside-out character formation like good soil producing ripe plant life; rather than through top-down leadership controls.

In the original church it was not so controlling, for example the Word of Wisdom was "not by commandment nor constraint." Tithing was less "controlled." Meanwhile, many (not all) of the Utah-based Mormon Leadership today focuses and emphasizes Protestant-like puritanical ideas and body shaming and "worthiness interviews" and labeling members either Worthy or Unworthy based on their loyalty and obedience to the Leaders of the Brighamite Corporate Institution; while Parley P. Pratt rejected this kind of puritanism in his pamphlet An appeal to the inhabitants of the state of New York, and his book Keys to the Science of Theology. Unlike many modern LDS Leaders today, Smith and Pratt rejected Protestant-like puritanical ideas that despised the body and degenegrated organic bodily life; they instead affirmed bodily affections and our sensuality as godly, and focused more on a bodily theosis that empowered the LDS Christian. Some LDS General Authorities are trying to get back to this.

As mentioned above, the New Testament does not cover wealth building for the future, family planning and retirement planning, due its apocalyptic ideology. Smith and Pratt in turn rejected celibacy and Tolstoy's wilful poverty, and instead embraced healthy consensual sexuality and family planning and retirement planning and building wealth in order to do good for your family and your Christian community.

I realized that Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt had formed scripturally and theologically a much more body-affirming, this-life-affirming, and muscular version of Christianity; which balanced out the more feminine energy of the New Testament. For more details, see my larger document on this subject: The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body.

At one point I then had a light bulb moment and realized that LDS Scripture solves a lot of the problems with the first century version of Christianity in the New Testament, and makes Christianity coherent and cohesive for today; and so I put together my theory in my website I titled: The Phases & Strategies of God: From Rome to America -- The Restoration of God's Warrior Spirit and the Hebrew Doctrine of the Sensual Body as God's Good Creation.

So what I have done is I have reconstructed a Christian life stance through LDS Scripture: which I utilize as an art form and midrash, which I call American Apocrypha. What I mean is that just as Catholics have in their Bible the Apocrypha which Protestants do not recognize as scripture, I simply see myself as a Smith-Pratt Restoration Believer in that my worldview-Christianity is very similar to every other Christian; except I add the LDS Scriptures (Lectures on Faith, Joseph's Bible Translation, Book of Mormon, etc.) as additional "apocryphal" texts like Catholics have in their Bibles that Protestants do not. 

To put it another way, the word gospel means glad tidings or the joyful proclamation or news that brings joy. The apostle Paul borrowed the word gospel from the Romans. In fact, the Romans had their own gospel, the gospel of Caesar. So Emergent Mormonism is an emergent extension of the biblical gospels. So that you have the Gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, but also the glad tidings that brings joy in the gospels of Dale Carnegie, Paul Tillich, Marcus Borg, and Paul Dobransky M.D.; combined with the gospels of Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, J. Golden Kimball, and Elton Trueblood (author of The Humor of Christ), etc.

So based on my theory of the phases and strategies of God, you have the emergence toward a gospel of heroic becoming, of joyful festivity, laughter, dancing, sensuality and fleshly affirmation; of orderly intimacy through monogamy; of the pursuit of happiness, the Great Health; higher status, wealth, and luminos power through the will to glory manifested in healthy boundary expansionism.

If one reads the original doctrine of The Lectures on Faith they will begin to realize that LDS Scripture and theology was actually originally more empowering and enlightening than one finds in the current Brighamite Church manuals and correlation system. If one then purchases or downloads a free copy of The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, one will find that in many passages that are difficult or problematic to modern ears, like passages that seem to promote celibacy, Joseph Smith presents a more body-affirming interpretation of those passages. In short, I began to see that there are a lot of versions of Christianity that are body-despising, but the Smith-Pratt Paradigm is what I call a "Body Affirming Christianity" (see below for more details).

So I do not begin with allegiance to the Utah-based Brighamite Leaders and do not believe in blindly "following the prophet," nor do I consider any church manual "official doctrine" to follow. I instead begin with a very simple belief in the fluid energy (pneuma, pronounced "nooma") of God being an empowering Force of Plenty; and so if anything I read or think about is not empowering and body-affirming, then it becomes suspect to me and I will tend to reject it as the "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." 

From "Faith Crisis" to Deconstruction to Faith Reconstruction & New Models of Faith

What I began to realize by 2015 is that there was a spectrum between those who were constantly deconstructing and criticizing in a state of permanent anti-Mormonism; and then there were those who were seeking to reconstruct their Mormon identity in a more positive direction. Even if that meant never attending a Mormon chapel again but appreciating their Mormon heritage and identity from the outside. I noticed reading his books that LDS scholar Terryl Givens did a form of deconstruction with his book Wrestling the Angel but then attempted a reconstruction with his wife Fiona and their books The Christ Who Heals and All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between. So I began to notice in Mormon scholarly circles this new paradigm that departed from the old paradigm of Joseph Fielding Smith, Boyd K. Parker and Bruce R. McConkie. I wrote an essay about this titled, A New Kind of LDS-Christianity: The pre-2005 Church vs. The post-2005 Church. I then produced a document summarizing the changes in the two Mormon paradigms, using images and the key scholars, titled: My Dream First Presidency in Images & The LDS Thinkers that I Align with Most. In that document I did not mention David Bokovoy who is worth mentioning, for he had a multiple part interview and in the Mormon Stories #1016 (at the 50-55 minute mark) he points out that he had reconstructed his Mormon faith and reconciled "faith and scholarship" in a way that he was completely satisfied intellectually as a Mormon; and it was only the Brighamite Church's socio-political policies around 2015 (it has since reversed) that caused him to become inactive. In the entirety of the Mormon Stories interview he lays out his sophisticated Mormon paradigm that aligns with biblical scholarship in Mormon Stories podcast episodes 1013-1016 and episodes 1019-1022.

As mentioned above, during this time in the 2010s I even began to see a change in a popular anti-Mormonism Christian speaker named Shawn McCraney, as he changed his attitude and put out a Revised Assessment of Mormonism. This came after his own paradigm shift and being attacked for it by others in his own Christian community for holding beliefs contrary to their dogma; like his rejection of the traditional dogma of the trinity which led to him being treated to a theological "inquisition."  After promoting and defending Utah Lighthouse Ministry (an anti-Mormonism bookstore), ran by Sandra Tanner, he suddenly realized he was being attacked by her because he stepped outside of the "Calvinist club" so to speak; and so he had these words to say to Sandra Tanner. Sandra's store has since been closed down (as of 2023), ironically due to crime in the area making Sandra feel unsafe, which one might argue was due to a lack of religious faith and ethical structure in that community. One of the first anti-Mormon books I read was Sandra's Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. Afterward, I began to realize her intellectual double standard of being so critical of Mormonism but not applying the same critical lens to her own particular theological bias and agenda.

So I began to see that some former anti-Mormon Evangelicals were beginning to reassess Mormonism and remodel it as something overall positive for families and community. As Shawn McCraney acted as host in the debate between RFM and the Midnight Mormons and at one point he says (to paraphrase him) that it's scorched earth out there for those who leave the Mormon Church and fall into atheistic nihilism or the Evangelical churches that manipulate them.

By 2015 I began to see many LDS-turned-atheists reconvert to a new Mormon paradigm as well. I began to notice several others who, like me, had become agnostic or nontheist and then had reconstructed a new Mormon paradigm. There was Don Bradley's journey from atheism to Mormonism that was similar to my own journey. Then there was the former atheist Leo Winegar who has reconstructed his faith with a model for believing in the Book of Mormon as non-literal history. Even the Mormon historian Patrick Mason presented his nuanced Mormon paradigm on Mormon Stories #1657 where he openly discussed the translation of The Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith as a combination of inspiration and a Nineteenth Century production, as a midrash; and how it functions as history and he is comfortable with seeing it through the lens of mythos (or a religious-metaphorical "lens") beyond the scientific enlightenment "lens," at the time-mark 2:10:00-2:33:00; while rejecting scriptural fundamentalism at the 2:36:00 time mark. This view, or something similar to it, had been taught by LDS scholar Blake Ostler for over a decade.

So I began to see the common trend of reconstructing faith through a new model of belief. The author of churchistrue.com has the sacramental paradigm. Even more traditional orthodox believers like LDS apologist Jacob Hansen have the Collective Witness Model. In Hansen's discussions with exmormons he readily admits to a lot of the problems in Mormonism but has simply formulated a model for being Mormon that works for him.

So I began to see a trend that "thinking Mormons" go through some kind of process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, and while Hansen is definitely more Orthodox than I am, a lot of the source material and scholars (like Tom Holland and Jordan Peterson) that he references is the same material I have read through toward my own reconstruction.

So who has the last word on what is true Mormonism? Was Brigham Young's Adam-as-god the true Mormon theology or was Orson Pratt correct to oppose his view in the 1800s? Is James Talmage the last say in "systemized Mormon theology," or are the views in Strangers in Paradox equally worthy of exploring? What about a more nuanced view of the Godhead that incorporates the theology of Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt and the fifth Lecture on Faith, which I found in the following slideplayer presentation (at slideplayer.com/slide/11649484); which does an excellent job providing a synthesis of the early LDS Godhead:

Click to open in a new window

So the way I see it, nobody owns Mormonism; and so why should I let the extreme Brighamite/LDS Orthodox position of those still stuck in the McConkie Era tell me what it means to be Mormon? Why let them have all the fun in producing an identity and belonging for themselves? Why should Joseph Fielding Smith and James Talmadge and Bruce R. McConkey get to tell me what it means to be Mormon and believe in Mormonism? They are not the last word on constructing a faith-stance or model of Mormonism!

So what I realized is that we are all constructing our own version of Mormonism, from Bruce R. McConkey to Terryl Givens, from Sandra Tanner's "Mormonism" to Shawn McCraney's revised reassessment of "Mormonism." So I realized that I have a right to essentially construct my own version of Mormonism that works for me, that gives me a sense of connection to my Mormon ancestors, a sense of belonging to my heritage and an identity. I did not need to be either "anti-Mormonism" or a McConkie Mormon. I found a way to make it work for me and empower me while inspiring me to be a better person by utilizing the unifying Christian symbols and stories of the Zion Ideal.

So if you have gone through a "faith crisis," and deconstructed the traditional LDS paradigm, so that it no longer works for you, but are interested in moving beyond atheistic nihilism, then I'm simply offering the Emergent Mormon Perspective as an option for reconstruction to anyone who's interested; who may benefit from my points of view and interpretations after their own "faith crisis." All I know is that for me personally, when I began this process of reconstruction it improved my sense of well-being. In fact, I did not even begin with reconstructing a Mormon model of belief but first began reconstructing my faith in Christianity around 2015 on my blog practical-fruition.blogspot.com and my site google site practical-fruition. 

All I know is that as I moved away from nihilistic atheism and toward reconstructing something to believe in again, even within a more nuanced paradigm, I began to feel better about life. I was less pessimistic and negative and I could even feel my self-esteem (well-being and confidence) improve as I felt more existentially vital (more alive) again being part of something larger than myself. I felt buoyed up by the mere "possibility of the Divine Realm" and felt connected to a rich chain of being through connection to my Mormon ancestors that strengthened me; as their collective faith and belief in a soul and Heavenly Parents and three degrees of glory (rather than eternal conscious torment in hell as taught by others), began to be for me just as important as a cultural identity and connection to a People, as a Jew feels connected to his Jewish ancestors and the faith and belief they passed on to him (even if that Jewish individual does not believe in all of it literally). I realized that just as somebody could be a Reformed Jew, I could be a "Reformed Mormon" of sorts.

I began to realize that the belief in the inherent worth of a person as a soul and not merely a collection of atoms, had really never left me. I realized that I appreciated my Mormon heritage and felt connected to my ancestors and the stories and symbols they passed onto me. Once I was able to separate those stories and symbols from the puritanical interpretations of Spencer W. Kimball, Boyd K. Packer and Bruce R. McConkey, the Mormon symbols and heroic stories opened up to me in new ways providing more potent and powerful psychological energy for personal growth and social unity. I began to realize that just as Dr. Paul Dobransky realized the importance of Greek mythology for providing a "tool belt" for exercising positive masculine instincts, I benefited from the Mormon "tool belt" and it's  emphasis on healthy masculine power through Book of Mormon heroes, and the ideal of Zion in Moses 7; and the theme of what I call Positive Generational Contagion in the Book of Mormon (which is all similar to MindOS and Daniel Goleman's positive emotional contagion).