Selectors and Absorbers: A Theory

 

I have a theory when it comes to religion. I think there's two different types of people when it comes to how religion affects them, I call them them absorbers and selectors. The selector type simply selects out of scripture and sermons what they like and discard everything else. It literally goes in one ear and out the other. They are selective moralists as well, in that they will select a certain moral principle in their religion and follow it to a "T," that is if they like it or prefer it but will ignore many or all of the other moral principles. A good example of this is Andrew Wilson who selects all of the moral framework of patriarchy and the "force doctrine" but rejects many other moral principles about kindness and compassion in the New Testament. He completely ignores it a deselects it. This is why many religious people suffer extreme scrupuliosity while others never experience it at all. Because those who never experience guilt or shame or scrupulosity, are the selectors. They are very good at ignoring and deselecting whatever they don't want to feel or don't like to think about. Thus, religion for them is only empowering because they are really good as selecting out what they like and prefer and ignoring and deselecting everything else, so that it literally does not enter their mind or affect their moods.


Then you have the absorbers, the absorbers are simply a certain temperament and type, that when they take something seriously for example reading the New Testament and wanting to really understand it and know what it is saying, they will naturally absorb the psychological energy of the content. This means that if they take it seriously they will, for example if they're Buddhist, end up becoming nihilistic and lose desire for living to its fullest by believing they are not a Self and everything is impermanent (meaning nothing is permanent but fading away materially so don't become overly emotionally attached to anything). If they are reading the New Testament that strongly discourages manly vitality and the conquering spirit, and instead suggests being a more docile male-bride of a messiah seeking poverty over wealth and power as a sign of holiness, they will absorb that energy and it will negatively impact their mind and behavior.


Just as the absorbers can't understand the selectors, how they can read or listen to pious religious content daily or weekly and have it not affect them. The selectors can't understand the absorbers because they just have a different brain chemistry and personal boundary where nothing enters their psyche unless they let it. I once knew a religious person who was extremely far-right conservative/libertarian on the political spectrum, who read or listened to religious Scriptures daily on audio and yet it had no impact on their actual behavior. I remember reading some verses from the New Testament on egalitarian communitarian "socialistic" type living, and the person looked at me like they had never heard those verses before; and yet they read or listened to the New Testament daily and yet they looked at me like a deer in headlights. This is a perfect example of the selector personality type.


What this means to me is that being happy as a religious person often has a lot to do with whether or not your a selector or absorber type. As an absorber myself, I can't be a "True Believer" in any religion. For I will read and absorb religious scripture and it will have an impact on my psyche but not in a good way. If you are not an absorber then a lot of what I think and feel about religion and scripture will not apply to you. The selector type is not who I am writing for.

About Beowulf

From The Scylding Cycle: Overview by The Ark:

... Though the first half of Hrolfr Saga is entirely Pagan, Christian themes begin to appear when Bodvar enters the plot. Near the end of the saga, Hrolfr refuses gifts of arms presented by a disguised Odin, and Bodvar warns that this error will cost him his life. The author, however, contrary to the clear intent of the original narrative, asserts that it was the heroes’ lack of faith in Christ which cost them victory and the final pages of the saga are filled with awkward, moralizing interjections which lament the heroes’ lack of Christianity. Both due to its setting and its partial Christianity, this saga introduces us to the world of Beowulf, creating a seamless bridge between the Pagan Norse material and Christianized Old English poem.

BEOWULF

 

Beowulf is the longest surviving work in Old English and the only work in this section not in Old Norse. It is an epic, composed in alliterative verse and preserved only in a single manuscript copied around 1000 AD. The date of the poem’s composition is debated, but it may have been as early as the 700s. The story itself is clearly quite old, likely older than the composition of the poem in its present form, as is standard for oral tradition. The epic was composed in West Saxon Old English, but with archaisms which suggest transmission from an earlier tradition. Though the poem is in Old English, it is set in Scandinavia, with the Geatish (of southern Sweden) hero Beowulf coming to the aid of the Danish royal court featured in Hrolfr Kraki Saga.

While the Christianity of Hrolfr Kraki Saga is awkwardly and intrusively inserted into the narrative by the author, Beowulf’s Christianity is both more subtle and more complete. The monster Grendel is said to be a descendant of Cain and God is invoked throughout the poem. Yet strangely, there are no mentions of Jesus Christ and most Biblical references refer to the Old Testament. Metaphysically and morally, the poem appears to be almost entirely Pagan, with fate, honor, kinship, hospitality, and heroism saturating the text and driving its plot. It is possible that a version of the poem was in circulation before the Christianization of the North and it is almost certain that the story itself predates the coming of Christianity.

One of the most interesting aspects of the epic is its many references to other Germanic legends and figures, such as Eormenric (the same Jormonrek who kills Gudrun’s sons in the Volsunga Saga) and Wayland/Volund of the Poetic Edda. For us, the most interesting of these is when a bard references Sigmund, a “Waelsing,” and his nephew, Fitela, who is presumably Sinfjotli. Many other references are embedded within the poem, with the most notable being a partial telling of the Finnsburg legend, preserved separately in the short Finnsburg Fragment. The poem, therefore, is saturated with Germanic legend, brought to England by the Anglo-Saxons and later by the Danes and Norse during the Viking Age. In fact, some scholars, amoung them Tolkien, theorize that the Hengest of the Finnsburg legend is the same figure as Hengist, the brother of Horse, who is said by Bede to have led the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in invading England alongside his brother.

When Caesar led the first Roman invasion of Britain during his Gallic Wars in 55 BC, the British Isles were inhabited by various insular Celtic peoples all speaking Celtic languages and practicing Celtic Paganism. ... In 410 AD, the same year that Alaric and his Visigoths sacked Rome, Emperor Honorius sent word to Britannia to tell them that they would no longer receive Rome’s support. Not long after, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, coming out of Denmark and Northern Germany, began to settle England. Roman-British Christian culture was replaced by Germanic culture, religion, and language. Soon after, Anglo-Saxon England was converted by missionary work both from the mainland and Northern Britain, where Christianity had persisted. But beginning in 793 AD with the Viking raid on Lindisfarne, the Norse would raid, invade, and settle England, bringing a new wave of Germanic Pagan influence to the Island. England continued to exchange hands between Norse—mostly Danish—and English rulers until it was conquered by the Normans in 1066. As a Christianized Old English story set in late Migration Period Scandinavia, Beowulf perfectly reflects England’s complicated history. 

 Though Beowulf is woven from Pagan cloth, some scholars read it as a highly Christianized poem, some even likening Beowulf to Christ. I find such analyses unconvincing. If the poem’s narrative anywhere displays Christian influence, it is in its end which seems to partly criticize the Pagan heroic ethos and partly lament its collapse. 

 

Having Fun & Laughing with Friends as the Core of Mormonism

 

Despite some (no not all, not all, not all) mainstream Mormons unfortunately sometimes lacking a sense of humor by seeking to be overly pious, in original Mormonism under the guidance of Joseph Smith there was definitely a spirit of playfulness, fun and laughter a lot of the time. 

The following is excerpts from Humor and Mormonism (Posted on April 27, 2013 by Jettboy):

When many, both in and outside of the Church, think of Mormons, the last thing that comes to mind is a sense of humor. Jokes are more likely to be aimed at them. There might be stereotypes of happy couples with smiling children or cheerful young men and women, but this image won’t include laughter.  To some extent piousness has infiltrated the subconscious of the Latter-day Saints a little too much. A good joke might be hard to find among serious calls to repentance.

 

As questionable as speculation, I wonder if the Prophet Joseph Smith would approve of the member’s seeming lack of joviality. He certainly didn’t like the lack of that quality when he was alive. Brigham Young learned from him that music, theater, and dancing were not of themselves sinful like he was taught growing up.  Life is to be enjoyed within reasonable limits and not pined away in perpetual sorrow.

 

Despite all the information we have about the Prophet Joseph Smith, perhaps what has been ignored today by both believers and critics was his sense of humor and good nature. Even his contemporary enemies acknowledged those aspects of him. In fact, more than once they were scandalized by his amusements. Said one commentator hearing him speak, “His language and manner were the coarsest possible. His object seemed to be to amuse and excite laughter in his audience.” (Charlette Haven to Sister Isa, Jan. 22, 1843, in Mulder and Mortensen, Among the Mormons, pg. 118-119). He loved to make boastful claims in order to bring attention to his subject or stress importance.

 

An unquestionable example of hyperbole that all other instances of the same can be compared with is a statement about Emma’s cooking:

 

Emma’s lot must have been a difficult one, for he was always bringing home a group to dinner. But she was a good cook. “When I want a little bread and milk,” Joseph told William W. Phelps, “my wife loads the table with so many good things it destroys my appetite.”

– Leonard J. Arrington, “Joseph Smith and the Lighter View,” New Era, Aug 1976, pg. 8.

 

It is the same with many of the so-called boastful statements of Joseph Smith about his station in life, such as having more education than a college professor has. Many have looked at how he described his religious role and consider it blasphemy. High profile visitor John Quincy Adams heard such a boast and understood the humor behind his declarations. Adams commented that Joseph had too much power, and was answered back, “Remember, I am a prophet!” Quincy noted, “The last five words were spoken in a rich, comical aside, as if in hearty recognition of the ridiculous sound they might have in the Ears of a Gentile.” (Quincy, Josiah. Figures of the Past: From the Leaves of Old Journals. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1883. Pg. 378-379).

 

Joseph Smith didn’t like the high mindedness of those who considered themselves too holy and self-righteous. He was even known to try and make them uncomfortable. As one story goes:

 

“I am aware that a great many have so much piety in them, that they are like the Baptist priest who came to see Joseph Smith. Joseph had the discernment of spirits to read a man, and a peculiar faculty of using up the old sectarian tone to “my dee-e-er brethren.” When he heard that good old tone he used to imitate it; and whenever one of the class, who are so filled with piety, and the good old tone, came to Nauvoo, Joseph used forthwith to take a course to evaporate their sanctimoniousness . . .

 

. . . After he got through chatting, the Baptist stood before him, and folding his arms said, “Is it possible that I now flash my optics upon a Prophet, upon a man who has conversed with my Savior?” “Yes,” says the Prophet, “I don’t know but you do; would not you like to wrestle with me?” That, you see, brought the priest right on to the thrashing floor, and he turned a summerset right straight. After he had whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head, he concluded that his piety had been awfully shocked, even to the centre, and went to the Prophet to learn why he had so shocked his piety. The Prophet commenced and showed him the follies of the world, and the absurdity of the long tone, and that he had a super-abundant stock of sanctimoniousness.”

 

-- Jedediah M. Grant, “Instructions to Newcomers,” Journal of Discourses, 3:66–67

Joseph Smith & the US Constitution

 Excerpts from Insights into the Mind and Personality of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Donald Q. Cannon:

 

... As I studied these research materials on Joseph Smith, it became evident that he was a patriot in the best sense of the word. He frequently expressed his loyalty to the United States of America and often praised the government and especially the Constitution. Once, while pointing out some problems in that time, he nevertheless concluded, “With all our evils we are better situated than any other nation.”[29] His patriotic feelings are further expressed in these examples:

The Constitution . . . is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner.[30]

I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States.[31]

Joseph Smith’s Sense of Humor by Donald Q. Cannon

 

Excerpts from Insights into the Mind and Personality of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Donald Q. Cannon

... Through my study of the teachings of Joseph Smith, I learned something about Joseph as a man—the human dimension. For one thing, I learned that Joseph had a sense of humor. He employed humor in his teaching because he understood that humor is helpful in reaching one’s audience. Some examples of his humor are the following:

 

You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins.[17]

... If we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.[19]

All ye lawyers who have no business, only as you hatch it up, would to God you would go to work or run away.[20]

It is best to let Sharp publish what he pleases and go to the devil, and the more lies he prints the sooner he will get through.[22]

Mr. Sollars stated that James Mullone, of Springfield, told him as follows:—”I have been to Nauvoo, and seen Joe Smith, the Prophet: he had a gray horse, and I asked him where he got it; and Joe said, ‘You see that white cloud.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Well, as it came along, I got the horse from that cloud.’”[23]

When a man undertakes to ride me I am apt to kick him off and ride him.[24]

I have said more than I ever did before, except once at Ramus, and then up starts the little fellow (Charles Thompson) and stuffed me like a cock-turkey with the prophecies of Daniel, and crammed it down my throat with his finger.[25]

In addition to using humor, Joseph Smith tried to incorporate colorful expressions that people could relate to and understand. He wanted to talk their language to help them comprehend his message. Here are some examples:

I tried to prevail upon him, making use of the figure, supposing that he should get into a mud-hole, would he not try to help himself out? And I further said that we were willing now to help him out of the mud-hole. He replied, that provided he had got into a mud-hole through carelessness, he would rather wait and get out himself, than to have others help him.[26]

A little tale will set the world on fire.[27]

Hit pigeons always flutter.[28]

 Feelings of charity came easily and naturally to Joseph Smith. As he taught:

Love is one of the chief characteristics of Deity, and ought to be manifested by those who aspire to be the sons of God. A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.[34]

There is a love from God that should be exercised toward those of our faith, who walk uprightly, which is peculiar to itself, but it is without prejudice; it also gives scope to the mind, which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality towards all that are not of our faith, than what they exercise towards one another. These principles approximate nearer to the mind of God, because it is like God, or Godlike.[36]

... My heart is large enough for all men.[38]

The Restoration of Joy: The Gospel of Happy Sociality, Fun, & Laughter

 

In this post I will distinguish between the "gospel of Mormonism" and other sectarian versions of Creedal-Christianity, where humor, joy and laughter are often absent or rejected. The fact is the New Testament gospels actually never mention Jesus smiling or laughing. To be fair though, D. Elton Trueblood tried to argue in his book The Humor of Christ that Jesus told jokes and had a sense of humor. But most priests and pastors never discuss D. Elton's theory and focus more on reminding you that "you're a sinner" and on fearing God's wrath. Watch this short video titled Orthodox Christianity is Depressing, discussing how most traditional imagery of Jesus in Christiandom is not very cheerful to get the idea. Only in Joseph Smith's restored gospel in LDS Scripture does Jesus appear smiling to his disciples in 3 Nephi 19:25, 30.

In Mormonism you have a more joyful representation of the gospel (the "message") in that life in the flesh is not to be despised, because all flesh is composed of spirit-matter (see D&C 131: 7-8): and so you do not have this sour faced framework of "spirit against flesh," since in Mormonism the fleshly body itself is a spiritual materiality, bodily instincts and all; which turns "dionysian" joy and laughter, fun and dancing and celebrations of life in the body, into a spiritual activity rather than a "sinful" one. So rather than the pursuit of sour faced somber piety like the body-despising sectarians (who often sought to repress all joy in the sensory body), the pro-American Joseph Smith basically pursued "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 

Joseph Smith "said ... to Mr. stout that Adam did not commit sin in eating the fruit" in 1841. For Adam only transgressed, so we are not as humans cursed with a permanent "sinful flesh" as claimed by Augustine's Original Sin dogma, which is nonsense and was rejected by Joseph (see Article of Faith #2). Joseph Smith instead dictated new scripture that declared that Adam was a mighty Archangel and he taught that Adam recieved the priesthood prior to earth. This radically shifted the framework away from the sectarian view in the Creeds, that saw Adam as sinning which cursed all human flesh: so that to be "holy" and/or "right with God" one needed to repress their instincts, appear pious, with celibacy as the highest spiritual ideal (if you were able). This body despising mentality was based on an underlying wish to escape one's alleged sin-cursed body, leading to sour faced self-flagellating life avoiding "pillar saints" and permanently celibate Catholic priests (that we still see to this day in the Catholic Church). By shifting the framework to a non-sinning Adam and Joseph saying Adam did not curse humanity with a "sin virus" -- but instead Adam did good by giving mankind the opportunity to experience joy and happiness in a body -- Joseph Smith had completely flipped the script and turned a life lived joyfully in the body itself as the way to connect with the divine or be "right with God." 

Joseph Smith completely rejected the core doctrines of the sectarian Creeds. In his restoration of all things, he rejected their core doctrines like the Fall, the Trinity, and Hell. For example, in D&C 19, Joseph explained that hell language in scripture is only metaphorical and in D&C 76 he taught Three Degress of Glory in the afterlife. This liberated the minds of his followers and removed the chronic mental stress many of them felt as former Protestants when they were terrified that a loved one or friend could be tortured in hell for not going to the right church or for not believing in the correct dogmas. Joseph Smith removed all of that mental anguish, all that pain and fear, with his doctrines; and thus he restored a sense of joy to being human again. For example, a relative of mine, Benjamin Franklin Johnson, grew up attending a Protestant church and while "attending these services, he was taught the principles of heaven and hell, and began to be 'afflicted with the idea of a future punishment, with literal fire and brimstone.'[3] Johnson said that this idea created great fear and anxiety in him until he found the Gospel of Jesus Christ [i.e. the LDS Church]" (Source). It's kind of hard to have fun and enjoy life when you're constantly tormented with the thought of you or your friends and loved ones, who don't belong to the right church or subscribe to the correct Creed, are going to be tormented forever in hell. I am personally saddened when I continue to meet many Creedal-Christians up to this day who are heavily burdened and drained of life daily by such hell fire fear mongering by their priests and pastors. Joseph Smith liberated my Pioneer ancestors from this yoke by instead casting a metaphorical canopy of joy over the horizon with a smiling Christ and gradations of heaven.  

Joseph taught that Adam fell upward so that mankind could pursue happiness through navigating oppositional forces and experience joy in a body of flesh (see 2 Nephi 2: 25). This meant that Adam's "one act" was part of a greater plan all along: which was for pre-existence spirits to gain bodies of flesh in order that they would have joy in their bodies of flesh! In fact, rather a Father God without a body and no passions (as taught in the sectarian Creeds), Joseph declared that God the Father  has a body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22); and rather than demanding extreme repression like we see with the pillar saints, Joseph Smith explained that actually "God is more liberal in his views"; and the same fun and joyful "sociality" among us here as humans would exist among us in the heavens among the embodied Gods (see D&C 130: 2; Abraham 4 and D&C 132). 

In my view, Joseph Smith's life-affirming joyful theology was a mirror reflection of his own nature being a cheerful person with a sense of humor. These articles below go into more detail about Joseph Smith's personality and temperament: 

• Joseph Smith’s Sense of Humor by Donald Q. Cannon

• Joseph Smith as Cheerful (by those who knew him) Compiled by The Joseph Smith Foundation

• How Joseph Smith’s “Native, Cheery Temperament” Sustained Him Through Trials by Jeffrey Marsh

• The Looseness of Zion: Joseph Smith and the Lighter View by Leonard J. Arrington

• Humor and Mormonism by Jettboy 

• Joseph Smith and the Spirit of Optimism by Mark D. Ogletree

Excerpts from "The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity" by Kathy L. Gaca

 

Excerpts from The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity by Kathy L. Gaca

From the Introduction, Loc 157 ... :

By the beginning of the second century c.e., patristic writers actively began to adapt ideas about regulating human sexual conduct from Plato, the Stoics, and the Pythagoreans as they developed their own teachings about permissible and impermissible sexual activity.[2] Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Epiphanes exemplify divergent early trajectories of this adaptation. Tatian was an ardent Christian advocate of complete sexual renunciation, also known as the “encratite”position, and Epiphanes was a Christian Platonist and a Gnostic supporter of more libertine sexual principles.

 

Tatian and Epiphanes drew on the Stoics for some of their teachings, and Epiphanes borrowed from Plato as well. Clement, also a Christian Platonist, censured both Tatian and Epiphanes for going to opposite extremes. He used Plato, the Stoics, and the Pythagoreans to develop putatively more moderate sexual guidelines. He is recognized today as a church father partly because he shaped a more workable set of Christian sexual regulations somewhere between the encratite and libertine positions. ...

 

Long before the emergence of Christianity, starting in the fourth century b.c.e., Plato, the Stoics, and the Pythagoreans produced sexually grounded political theories designed to create a more just and harmonious society. By their reasoning, human reproductive and other sexual mores are central to any endeavor to attain social order, justice, and well-being. ... For different reasons, Plato, the Stoics, and the Pythagoreans all found Greek society poorly constructed in its sexual foundations.[3] In response, they went to work like city-planning contractors and put in their utopian bids to construct sexual systems that would create new and improved societies.

 

... [Philosophers] had good reason to doubt, as Plato did near the end of his life, whether their ideal city plans would ever have any influence over human sexual behavior and society.[6] Aspects of the Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean plans eventually did become more influential through the nascent Christian church as it developed its own sexually grounded bid for a new social order. This development started in earnest by the second century, when the patristic writers began adapting various regulatory elements from the Greek philosophers, as well as from the Greek Bible (or Septuagint), the apostle Paul, and Philo of Alexandria. The proto-ecclesiastical bid eventually won imperial approval. Near the end of the fourth century, the Roman emperor Theodosius I in effect awarded the contract to the church when he made orthodox Christianity the sole permissible religion in the Roman Empire.[7] At this time the sexual and broader political reforms promoted by the church proceeded on a much more ambitious scale than they had hitherto. This especially holds true for the religious sphere of Christian sexual reform. ...

 

... A millennium later, [Gentile] Christian sexual morality set forth on an even more ambitious venture into the world, hand in hand with European colonialism.

 

Through this wide-ranging movement of Catholic and Protestant empire, the ecclesiastical sexual reforms that began to take shape by the second century c.e. [after 100 AD]  have informed the sexual basis of Western culture.

We can thus see that the original Hebrew Bible's view that was pro-body, with the "good nephesh" (the fleshy body) and was pro-sex: God even endorsed wives and concubines. This was changed by pagan converts to early Messianic Judaism (pre-70 AD Christianity), wherein, after 70 AD non-Hebrew converts outnumbered Hebrew Christians. These non-Hebew converts were influenced by Platonism and other Greek ideas. So, using the Greek translatiin of the Bible rather than the Hebrew Bible, after 70 AD we see Christianity losing it more Hebew pro-body aspects. Most of the original Jewish Christians died in 70 AD, so the Gentile Christians smuggled in pagan ideas into the Churches.

Excerpts staring from Loc 202: 

The inhabitants of Europe, the Americas, and various other regions live and make love in the domains of these religious sexual rules. This holds true even for the many persons, Christians and non-Christians alike, who resist [Empire-run] Christian sexual morality and its predominantly marital orientation. The Christian pattern of family values remains powerful in the United States and elsewhere, [6]. Plato in the Laws remains convinced that “no one will ever posit a more correct or better definition [of the ideal city] in its preeminence toward human virtue than one in which the private ownership of women, children, and all other goods is everywhere and by every means eliminated from human life,”739b8 –e[3]. Nonetheless, by this time Plato has come to believe that such reform is not workable given entrenched human possessiveness —my house, my family, my slaves. Only “gods or children of gods dwell happily in the fully communal city,” Laws 739d6 –e1.

 

... the sexual ethics of Plato and the Hellenistic philosophers, the Stoics in particular, provided early Christians with a prototype to adopt, with the result that Christian sexual morality followed rather fluidly from its philosophical predecessors. This view, if correct, would mean that the church fathers launched the philosophers’ sexual reforms on a scale that Plato, the Stoics, and the Pythagoreans never imagined —not a small town utopia here and there, but first the Roman Empire and later the New World as well. The differences separating the Hellenistic philosophers and church fathers would be relatively minor compared to their largely shared code of sexual morality. The former sing the Hymn to Zeus while the latter say the Lord’s Prayer, but the philosophers are honorary pre-Christian church fathers in their sexual restrictions and ascetic discipline.

 

... “Christianity has sometimes been considered . . . as playing the role of the oppressive mother superior...sexually liberated pagan culture of Greece and Rome. Most recent works on sexuality in the ancient world, however, have shown this to be an oversimplification, if not totally inaccurate.” [Foucault’s Care of the Self is first in Martin’s supporting citation, 289 n. 3.]. ...

COMPETING VIEWS: CLEMENT & AUGUSTINE'S VIEWS DOMINATED

... the relationship between Plato, early Stoicism, and so-called libertine Christianity, as exemplified by Epiphanes, is one of substantive and thoughtful continuity regarding sexual mores. Epiphanes regards the Platonic and early Stoic sexual principles as the right models for a Christian way of life. Clement, however, condemns Epiphanes for heresy because the ecclesiastical sexual mores that Clement champions cannot be reconciled with the Platonic and early Stoic sexual reforms. ....

PAUL IMPLEMENTED STOICISM & SO DID Epiphanes:

Stoic eros, in both its early communal form and its later marital guise, challenges the ingrained Greek conviction that eros is a divine force that capriciously subjugates mortals to its power. The Gnostic Christian Platonist Epiphanes adapts and promotes early Stoic eros in a communal Christian form.

SEX ONLY IN MARRIAGE CAME FROM CERTAIN GRECO FORMS OF PAGANISM:

... the dictate that people should make love strictly for reproduction and only within marriage...has a specifically Pythagorean provenance, and its central imperative is incompatible with Stoic sexual ethics, early and later alike. Given the prevalent but mistaken view that this sexual regulation was common currency in Hellenistic moral thought, its appearance in Philo and the church fathers seems a simple carryover of a widespread Greek philosophical view into the Christian sexual morality of the patristic period.

 

This impression is false. Like the infinitesimal triangles that shape the elements of Pythagorean reality,[21] the sexual dictate to marry and make love strictly for reproduction is a distinctive, even peculiar, artifact of Pythagorean thought, which transmutes and naturalizes into a biblically grounded church doctrine through the scriptural exegesis of Philo and Clement.

THE GREEK BIBLE:

To investigate the formation of Christian sexual morality without considering the Greek biblical norms [in the Septuagint] that inform it is like trying to understand Moby Dick while setting the whale aside. ...

Priesthood as the Power to Generate (Procreate) Endless Lives

In the 1800s, the LDS Church defended plural marriage by arguing that it gave men an outlet for their sexual desire; so that men would not be tempted to commit adultery or visit prostituties. Implicit in this was a nonjudgemental attitude of male virility and sexual desire in and of itself. D&C 132, the Book of Abraham 2:11, and the temple endowment on power in the loims and joy in one's posterity, all interpreted male sexual desire and seed-fertilizing power as holy, as man's "power in the presethood." Givens quotes Joseph Smith in his book Feeding the Flock, page 51, saying "the priesthood [...is] the power to generate 'endless lives' (a post-resurrection posterity), [WJS, 247]." In other words, Godhood, becoming one of the Gods in Abraham chapter 4 entailed procreative power with a body of celestialized flesh that bears the souls of men through wives and concubines (see D&C 76 and 130, 131, 132). 

All this changed in the 1900s, when the US government forced the Mormon Church to abandon plural marriage and what followed was a slow procress of endimg the theology behind the doctrine of procteatimg Gods as well. As Puritanicl Protestantism entered Mormon Thought and culture and the origional pro-body doctrine was replaced with a more Protestantsoumdimg dogma. Overtime Mormon men were then expected to control their sexual desire with Augustinian lines of thought. This was a complete reversal in mindset. The former Nauvoo era theology accepted male biology and desire as natural and embraced a spiritual outlet for man's sex drive, but the latter post-1900 view despised the body and attempted to muzzle the man's "power in the preiesthood"; and move him away from the former Nauvoo Enlightenment and back to the mindset of the Dark Middle Ages: of monkish asseticism, and celibacy before marriage, and only monogamous marriage.

Joseph Smith on “Feeling Nothing” and the Book of Mormon’s Pragmatic Epistemology on Faith as Uncertainty Growing to Experiencial Knowledge & the Criteria of the Ethically "Good" as Truth

 

From Joseph Smith, “Feeling Nothing”, and the Book of Mormon’s Pragmatic View of Faith by instrument_801:

Early accounts of Joseph Smith’s religious life suggest that both his experience and the Book of Mormon he produced frame faith not as emotional certainty, but as a pragmatic process of acting in hope and judging truth by its enduring fruits even if not felt.

 

Here are some musings I am working through. The story of Joseph Smith begins with a young man trying to find God. He was seeking redemption of his sins and trying to discern which church, if any, was true. In one of the Church’s First Vision videos, the narrative draws on an account I was less familiar with. In it, Joseph Smith states that he “wanted to feel and shout like the rest but could feel nothing.”

 

> Br Joseph tolt us the first call he had a Revival Meeting his Mother & Br & Sister got Religion, he wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & shout like the Rest but could feel nothing…[See: Alexander Neibaur, Journal excerpt, 24 May 1844; in Alexander Neibaur, Journal, 5 Feb. 1841–16 Apr. 1862, pp. 23–24; handwriting of Alexander Neibaur; CHL.]

 

This experience aligns closely with how the Book of Mormon defines faith and knowing truth. Faith is explicitly not equated with perfect knowledge or emotional certainty. It is described as hope in things that are true but not yet fully known, followed by action in uncertainty (Alma 32:21, 27). Truth is tested through lived experience, and confirmation comes as the “seed” grows and produces a real impact on the soul and one’s understanding (Alma 32:28, 33–34).

 

Within this framework, feelings are not rejected, but they are not decisive on their own. What matters is what faith produces over time. The Book of Mormon provides a clear moral epistemology for judging truth: “all things which are good cometh of God” (Moroni 7:12). Individuals are given the capacity to judge by observing whether something invites them to do good, to believe in Christ, and to grow in light (Moroni 7:16–17). Is this how Joseph viewed his faith?

Scripture Focused: On Official Doctrine, The Standard Works & The Collective Witness Model: Knowing What is True, Authoritative and Binding on Mormons vs. Opinion, Conjecture, and a Yoking Burden

 

• The Case for "Scripture Focused Mormons" & What that Means?

• How the "Standard Works" (Mormon Canon) itself Teaches The Authority of Scripture over Fallible Leaders

• The Authority of LDS Scripture (Standard Works) versus the Tradition of the Elders?

• The True Law of Common Consent by Patrick (link to the site Uncorrelated Mormonism)

• Come in at the Gate of only Joseph Smith's Revelations (D&C 43: 2-7)

• 3 Bullets Point Summary On Scripture-focused Independent Mormonism that Is At Odds with Brethrenism

• Mormon Scripture through a Pro-Body Lens

• Comparing Jesus' Words in Mathew 15 & 23 in The Remedy to Brethrenism

• Mathew 23: Those Who Sit in Moses' Seat in The Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

• "Scripture Focused Mormon" Resources: Recommended Brighamite and Non-Brighamite Scriptures, Websites and other Restorationist Books, etc.

Mormonr article on Plural Marriage and LDS Population Growth in the 1800s

Excerpts from Polygamy and Population Growth by Mormonr.org:

Jacob 2 states, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people." ...

 

Did polygamy actually increase the population in Utah more than it would have otherwise? 

Yes, probably. Studies have shown that societies where a man can have more than one wife tend to have many more children than other societies,[2] and Latter-day Saints had a lot of children relative to the rest of the U.S. at the time, particularly while polygamy was practiced.[3] ... Polygamy leads to fewer unmarried women,[7][8] which increases the number of children born in the polygamous society overall even if plural wives had fewer children than non-plural wives in that society.[9]  ...

OUR TAKE [at Mormonr.org]

 

... The scriptures tell us that polygamy was to "raise up seed"—did that actually work?

There is some data from census records and other studies on how polygamy affected the Utah population. That data indicates that polygamy increased the population more than comparable non-polygamous populations at the time. It seems that though polygamous wives had fewer children, polygamous populations disproportionally increased because more women were married and could have children.

 

Understanding polygamy, and the reasons for it, is more complicated than simply stating that it was meant to increase the population. There are many more legitimate questions about polygamy, and it's okay to acknowledge the messiness and complexities of the topic. Commandments from God can have temporal justifications, but Latter-day Saints rely on faith as they make sense of something like polygamy.

My take on this is that plural marriage was practiced in order to raise up the seed of Ephraim among the first LDS members in the 1800s. So their was a selective birthing process where those from the "northern countries" (mostly from Britain and Scandinavia), that were declared the pure blood of Ephraim, were raising up their seed in particular. So that plural marriage selected for more of the Ephraimite women by giving them more opportunities to give birth to the seed of Ephraimite men at the time. 

 

Expiation & Cohesion: How "Let's Talk about Polygamy" book adds support for my Thesis "The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma" & Supports the early formation of an "Ephraimite Peoplehood"

 

In the book Let's Talk about Polygamy by Britney Nash, in chapter eight, pages 95-103 we read:

In the [LDS] revelation on plural marriage, one reason given for plurality was to “multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:63). In the Bible, Abraham was promised to have progeny as limitless as the sands of the seashore (Gen. 22:17). Latter-day Saints saw themselves as members of the restored house of Israel, called to help fulfill this Abrahamic covenant and, in so doing, becoming recipients of the same blessings (D&C 132:29–33). The Saints were not simply to produce children, however. God intended that they “raise up seed unto me,” implying that, through plural marriage, a righteous man with multiple wives could father more children and thus raise a large and faithful posterity unto the Lord (Jacob 2:30; italics added). 

 

Significantly, however, the Book of Mormon establishes monogamy as God’s preferred order of marriage except if the Lord commanded polygamy to be instituted (Jacob 2:24, 27, 30). These scriptures specify that monogamy is the rule, but polygamy could, for a time, be the exception. ... 

 

... Early converts were excited by the Church’s assertion that the “dispensation of the fulness of times” had commenced and would bring a final “restitution of all things,” including a restoration of the laws, authority, ordinances, and blessings of previous dispensations (D&C 128:18; 132:40; Acts 3:21; Eph. 1:10).[1] Among those laws was plural marriage, practiced by the ancient patriarchs of the Old Testament, and many Saints accepted polygamy as being a component of the restoration ...

 

 As a young woman in England, Sarah Barnes joined the Church in 1842, believing that she had embraced “the same Gospel that the ancients had.” After learning that the Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy, she wrote, “I could plainly see that if plural marriage was a principle of the Gospel then, it must of necessity be so now.”[2] Sarah’s conviction of the necessity of a restoration of all things, including the reintroduction of plural marriage, was reinforced by her study of the Bible and served as the foundation of her acceptance of polygamy, and she later became a plural wife. ... 

 

Since the restored Church had direct roots in the Old Testament and Latter-day Saints viewed themselves as modern Israel (God’s people), they anticipated trials individually and collectively. Because Joseph Smith’s revelation on plural marriage mentioned Abraham and the sacrifice of his son Isaac, many nineteenth-century Saints saw polygamy as an “Abrahamic test” intended to purify the Saints ... 

 

... More broadly, the Saints believed that because they were God’s people, He required their trial and purification as a group. ...

 

... Polygamy created a sense of cohesion among the Latter-day Saints. God’s people were always chastened in some way, the Saints believed, and polygamy was a shared trial that set them apart from other religious groups, reinforcing the idea that, through hardship, God was molding His chosen people. The practice also established an insular, protective sense of community. As the Saints gathered in the Mountain West, the sense of being a people set apart deepened. Church members not only created extensive family networks through plural marriage but also banded together to defend their religious beliefs from an outside world that persecuted, rejected, and mocked them. ... 

I believe that the best explanation for this purification process was the "expiation" of the sectarian Creeds, and their anti-body ideologies, from the psyche of early LDS members. For those Creeds were declared an abomination in Smith's First Vision.  When Nash says, "Polygamy created a sense of cohesion among the Latter-day Saints," this supports what I argue in my posts here and my documents here, where I argue that polygamy acted as a kind of funnel for producing a close knit quasi-ethnic tribe in the 1800s. Nash's book continues:

Victorian Sexuality and Polygamy

 

People in the nineteenth century were simultaneously horrified and fascinated by the sexual possibilities of polygamy. During the Victorian era, there was a dramatic rise in prostitution, and it was considered one of the great social problems of the day. Those not of the Latter-day Saint faith considered polygamous marriages illegitimate and scorned plural wives as being adulterers, prostitutes, and concubines. Latter-day Saints perceived a great hypocrisy between accusations that they were sexually immoral while the sexual indiscretions of Victorian men, such as employing prostitutes, were at that time figuratively swept under the rug. Apostle Orson Pratt suggested that plural marriage was an antidote to fornication and adultery. In the August 1853 issue of The Seer, he took the stance of a social reformer, arguing that polygamy could eradicate prostitution because men would not be tempted to have extramarital relations and women would each have the opportunity to marry able providers (124–25). Elder Pratt’s reasoning was not grounded in scripture or doctrine, but it became a popular defense of polygamy used by Latter-day Saints to publicly justify the practice.

 

... For a woman who desired to marry, plural marriage expanded her opportunities to find a husband. ...

 

This affirmation of biological desire by Pratt and others shows the pro-body nature of Mormonism. The book continues on, and we read in the Conclusion, pages 143-144:

“Plural marriage, as it was practiced, served its purpose.” —Elder Quentin L. Cook, 2020 

 

... The Gospel Topics Essays published on the official Church website suggest that the lasting effects of plural marriage were “the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes,” the availability of marriage to “virtually all who desired it,” equalized wealth per capita, “ethnic intermarriages,” and aid in uniting “a diverse immigrant population.”[1] Polygamy provided a sense of group solidarity as Latter-day Saints saw themselves as separate from other religious sects, a “peculiar people” (1 Pet. 2:9). Indeed, in its purpose to “raise up seed unto [the Lord],” polygamy was remarkably effective (Jacob 2:30). Research suggests that 20 percent of living Church members descend from those who practiced polygamy.[2]

 

When plural marriage was discontinued, polygamists, too, reflected on its purpose and many believed it had been fulfilled. Said one plural wife, “Polygamy has served its day. We helped to populate Utah and to make it possible for every woman to become a mother. . . . We have served our purpose and polygamy has gone.”[3] ... Apostle Quentin L. Cook, reflecting on nineteenth-century polygamy, shared that “plural marriage, as it was practiced, served its purpose. We should honor those Saints, but that purpose has been accomplished.” ...

 

This is exactly what I had argued in my blog post here. So reading this book after I had written that post made me realize that the book substantiates my theory.

 

Why I'm "Mormon" (& Not Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist or Atheist)

 

• Bullet Point List of Why I'm a "Worldview-Mormon": Or Why I'm Not a Catholic, Protestant, or Secular-Atheist  & Want the LDS Church to Thrive (Even If/When I'm not a Chapel-Mormon)

• Why I'm a "Heritage Mormon” (Not Protestant, Catholic, Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Buddhist): The Case for Mormonism as an Ethnolinguistic Ancestral Religion like Ethnic Religions such as Jewish Judaism or Japanese Shintoism, etc.

• My Journey: Reconstructing a New Mormon Worldview

Witnesses to the Book of Mormon as Anglo-Saxon Oath-Helpers (Excerpts)

Excerpts from Witnesses to the Book of Mormon as Anglo-Saxon Oath-Helpers by J. Max Wilson:

 

... I recognized an interesting parallel to the early Norse and Anglo-Saxon origins of English Common Law ... the medieval legal traditions of the Norse and Germanic cultures [is] from [out of] which English Common law, and subsequently American law, developed. As a result, a number people have at least a cursory familiarity with the Athenian forum while far fewer are familiar with the Norse Thing or the Anglo-Saxon Folkmoot, or the later British Witenagemot.


The Anglo-Saxon folkmoot, like the Norse Thing, was a governing assembly consisting of the free members of the community or district. The folkmoot protected the people against anarchy and tribal feuding by mediating disputes and grievances according to the Common Law (Old English folcriht, literally “right of the people”) and in theory provided each free man a single vote ... The Folkmoot and Thing are the early precursors to our modern legislative assemblies and trials by jury. Later, the folkmoots developed into hundred courts, borough courts, and shire courts.


Lawsuits were heard before the folkmoot. The procedure was for a number of “oath-helpers” to testify of the innocence of the defendant, who himself made an oath of innocence. The word “Juror” comes from the Latin iurature, which means “swearer” or “oath maker.” The defendant had to secure a certain number of oath-helpers to establish his innocence . The number of oath-helpers was traditionally twelve, a number that has carried through to our modern juries. If he failed to secure enough oath-helpers, the defendant was judged guilty.


... As the translation of the Book of Mormon neared completion, however, he was permitted to show the plates to a few individuals who are known as the three witnesses and the eight witnesses. It occurred to me that the testimony of Joseph Smith plus those of the three witnesses and then the eight witnesses made a total of twelve testimonies to the real existence of the plates. In a sense Joseph plus the other eleven witnesses filled the ancient role of the twelve Anglo-Saxon oath-helpers needed to establish the fact of their existence. In this way the witnesses of the Book of Mormon fit into a deep rooted cultural tradition that still wields power in our society.


(Unrelated trivia for The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fans: The Entmoot attended by Merry and Pippin with Treebeard in “The Two Towers” is based on the Anglo-Saxon Folkmoot; the Wizengamot, or high court of wizards of which Albus Dumbledore is the head in the Harry Potter books, is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot—Old English witan means “wise man”)

How Greek Cynic-Acestism and Sin-Sex Syndrome of Augustine Changed the Hebrew Bible's "Sanctity of the Physical" into a Virginal Jesus & A Celibate Ideal. Excerpts from "The Case for a Married Jesus" by William E. Phipps

 

In my blog series on a pro-body Christianity, I have argued that a major aspect of the Smit-Pratt Restoration Movement is the affirmation of bodily life and the sexual body. I then ran across the article The Case for a Married Jesus by by William E. Phipps, that further substantiates my case:

Appreciation is overdue for a Mormon who had the insight and courage to revive a Hebraic viewpoint toward Jesus’ relationships with women. Orson Hyde, the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, in a sermon delivered at Salt Lake City in 1857, maintained that Jesus was married. He argued: “If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary, Martha, and the other Mary also, who Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper, to say the best of it.” In that same sermon President Hyde even suggested that the story in John 2 of a wedding at Cana is a record of Jesus’ marriage to a Galilean woman.[Source: Orson Hyde, The Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young, 4 (1857), p. 259.]

 

Hyde’s striking belief in Jesus’ marriage gained wide acceptance in the pioneer Mormon community. ... 

 

Recognizing that the Bible provides no explicit information on Jesus’ marital status, what could have stimulated Hyde to assert what no Christian had claimed for many centuries? ... Hyde was sent to Palestine to do missionary work among Jews .... 

 

That cultural association doubtless made him more aware than most Christians that marriage in traditional Judaism—either single or plural—was prerequisite to righteous man hood. Since Jesus was addressed as “Rabbi” and was a devout Jew, he would in all probability have married. 

This essay will explore in some detail the way in which Hyde’s position on Jesus’ marital status was in accord with the Hebraic outlook. It will also show why this significant matter pertaining to the historical Jesus was long lost. Even the discussion of Jesus’ marital status became taboo and remains so to the present time for most Christians. 

 

 From the opening pages of Hebrew Scripture onward, the sanctity of marriage as a part of the divine creation is a prominent theme. Sexual relations between those “joined by God” was considered a necessary good, not a necessary evil. The writer of the Garden of Eden story believed that the unmarried state was “not good/’ and that every man (adham) should utilize the sexual impulse and other gifts of nature for human fulfillment. The solitary state is the first thing the Lord pronounced undesirable. Genesis 2 tells of man’s ecstasy when his loneliness is relieved by female companionship and when his “rib” is returned to form a “one flesh” wholeness. Masculine and feminine inter dependence and complementariness are exquisitely expressed in that ancient story. There is no indication that its writer or any other biblical writers believed that sexual desire was contaminated because of the sin of the first human parents. Marriage was expressly required for the Levitical priests, for they transmitted their office by family inheritance. The burning love of a couple which “many waters cannot quench” was admired by the prophets and poets of Israel. ....

 

... Sociological practice in biblical culture with respect to marriage was in accord with theological doctrine. Marriage was considered a sacred obligation in Judaism and was fulfilled at an early age. In the many centuries of biblical history there is no instance of lifelong celibacy. However, two persons, Jeremiah and Paul, abstained from marriage for part of their lives because they considered themselves to be in special crisis situations. Jeremiah temporarily refrained from marital life to dramatize the senseless deprivation which would result from fighting against the Babylonians. Paul indicated that he had once been married but was either a widower or separated from his wife when he wrote to the Corinthians. The apostle was convinced at that period of his Christian career that the finale of history was near. That predicament reconciled him to his own unattached state and caused him to recommend it for others with a similar disposition. ...

 

... In my study, Was Jesus Married? (Harper and Row, 1970), the alleged New Testament evidence for Jesus’ celibacy was weighed and found wanting. Paul, who provides the earliest record of Jesus and who personally thought at one period of his life that the single were not obligated to marry, did not point to Jesus as a model for the unmarried. In 1 Corinthians 7, where appeal is made to the teaching of Jesus on marriage, the apostle explicitly admitted that he knew nothing of Jesus’ position on celibacy. Since the voluntary “eunuch” was unheard of in Judaism and hence would have attracted much attention if someone professed such a status, it is inconceivable that Paul would not have been aware of Jesus’ condition had he and some of his fol lowers vowed to renounce marriage for life. 

In I Corinthians 9:5 Paul asserted in passing that travel with wives was the standard practice of the apostles. It is unlikely that this would have been the case if Jesus had been single and had expected the devout to follow his example. Moreover, in the Pastoral Letters, marriage is laid down as a qualification for those who hold church office. This requirement is unaccountable had not Jesus and his apostles been married. ... 

 

... Assuming that Joseph discharged his duty as a righteous father, he must have arranged for Jesus’ betrothal.

 

... In 1945 an ancient Christian folio volume, the Gospel of Philip, was dis covered in Egypt. It explicitly states that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ “consort.” If that document preserves an authentic tradition, as it well may, then it affords evidence that Jesus married. ... It is therefore possible that Mary was his wife and that she belonged to that group of women-wives who are occasionally mentioned in the Gospels as traveling with Jesus and his male disciples. 

It would be contrary to both ancient and modern notions of virtuous behavior if Jesus were closely associated day after day with a group of unattached women. Hyde has perceptively commented: 

I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of their heads … he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode not on an ass, but on a rail. 

 

... If Jesus married, why is it that the opposite assumption has been dominant throughout the history of Christianity? The moral dualism of Hellenistic philosophy that infiltrated Gentile Christianity in the post-apostolic era has been mainly responsible for the dogma that Jesus was perpetually virginal. That dualism held that the pure immaterial soul was imprisoned in the defiled flesh during this earthly existence. Consequently, the best way of freeing the spiritual essence even before death was by a practice of rigid abstention—which is now designated as asceticism. Some of his major interpreters in church history have, on the basis of an anti-biblical psychology, assumed that Jesus had no sexual desire or that he could not have expressed it in relations with a woman.

 

Sexual asceticism was found in early Greek philosophy and it became increasingly prominent in the Hellenistic age. As this side of the Greco Roman civilization is not admired in modern secular culture, little attention has been given to its influence. From the Renaissance to the present day, the ancient Greeks have been associated with a balanced ethic—”nothing overmuch.” Of course, beginning with Homer that rational moral mean can be traced. But some of the more recent studies show that ascetic movements were also significant. In the Roman era an extreme ethic was popular among eclectic philosophers who drew on the earlier asceticism of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, and Cynic-Stoicism. Philosophers such as Cicero, Philo, Plotinus, and Porphyry—all scathing in their denunciation of physical pleasure—had a powerful impact on what came to be known as the Christian ethic. This ascetic tendency among philosophers, coupled with the popular veneration for virginity in cults of the Mediterranean area, partially eclipsed the biblical belief in the sanctity of the physical. ...

 

... In orthodoxy, Jesus became the model for virginity among males and Mary among females. By means of a grotesque typology, Bishop Irenaeus presented Jesus and his mother as anti-types of Adam and his wife. According to that influential church father, our first parents lived in an unconsummate marriage until they sinned. Jesus and his mother, unlike Adam and Eve, never indulged in sex, and thereby they restored corrupt mankind to the good graces of God.[5] In the third century the earlier tradition held by some Christians that Jesus married was squelched and the speculation by others that Jesus was perpetually virginal coagulated into unquestioned dogma. 

 

In the fourth century some church fathers replaced martyrdom with virginity as the supreme virtue. With the rise of monasticism a rift between secular and sacred vocations emerged, and celibacy gradually became the sine qua non of the holier life. The monks assumed that pain was purer than pleasure, so much attention was given to ridding life of all fleshly satisfactions except those absolutely essential for individual survival. 

 Augustine is most to blame for the sexually ascetic ethic of Latin Christianity. His training in the pagan classics, coupled with a guilt complex resulting from youthful excesses, caused him in later life virtually to identify pleasure with sin. Augustine believed that couples who fall in love also fall in morality. Cupid love effects a lowering of virtue while spiritual love, divorced from sexual intercourse, causes a heightening of virtue. Indulgence of the tender passions was considered incompatible with total consecration. 

Augustine denounced Bishop Julian who held that sexual desire was not necessarily defiling and that it was intrinsic to human nature. Julian concluded that Jesus had sexual desire and that Christians who marry are not second class citizens in the kingdom of God. But the Bishop of Hippo argued that it was impossible for Jesus the perfect man to have sexual desire which is tainted with evil. Julian, who was condemned as a heretic, was closer than Augustine to the authentic biblical ethic pertaining to sex and marriage. A propos of ironical heresies such as this, David Mace laments: 

It is a great pity that the inhibited Christian mind has obscured for us all too often those wholesome features of Old Testament marriage. Some of the statements of the early [Christian] fathers, with their implications concerning the unspir- itual and even unwholesome nature of the appointed means of human generation, would have sounded gravely heretical in Hebrew ears.[6]

Jesus, who endorsed the marital standard embodied in the Genesis creation story, would also have rejected Augustine’s sexual ethic.

 

Augustine and Aquinas, the main pillars of medieval orthodoxy, differed little in their sexual asceticism. Both damned marriage with faint praise by making invidious comparisons of its lower good to the higher good of virginity. Both believed that marriage was a concession to human weakness and that the curse of sexual desire had been perpetuated throughout history from the aboriginal disobedient pair. 

In modern history all Christian churches have made efforts to de-escalate the medieval anti-sexual crusade and restore an awareness of the sanctity of sexuality. The sin-sex syndrome which came into Christianity from Hellenistic dualism has been the cause of an apostasy that has been most difficult to extricate. Yet it is becoming increasingly apparent to most Christians, as it was to Orson Hyde, that the intimate encounters between husband and wife can enhance the life-style of even the holiest of men. More psychosomatic wholeness would result if there were revived the Hebraic outlook that marital coitus is at least as hallowed as virginal abstinence, and that a married Savior need not be regarded as less pure than one who was a lifelong celibate. 

 

 

Mormonism & Indo-European Solar Pantheonism: The Case for a Subconscious Restoration of the Ancient Indo-European Solar Pantheon via the Selective Breeding of "Ephraimite Europeans" being Similar to Nietzche's Archetypal Heroic Overcomer and the Ubermensch

Disclaimer: The following is a speculative attempt to understand Mormonism and represents my opinion alone and does not represent the doctrine or teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What I will argue below is that even if, as even some LDS scholars argue, Mormon Scripture contains pseudepigrapha -- and that Joseph Smith had pious intentions seeking  the greater good (as historian Dan Vogel argues) -- that would only add to my appreciation of what Joseph Smith accomplished. For what matters to me most is what is real, and what is real as I see it is the psychological "energy" of the Indo-European mythos of my Northern Anglo-European ancestors: which I see "bubbling up" from the pages of Joseph Smith's scriptural creations as an Indo-European himself. 

Being of Indo-European ancestry myself, even if Joseph Smith was not consciously aware of what he was doing, I think can appreciate that "Mormonism" is a product of Joseph's Indo-European nature and his American identity. I think Smith was either consciously or subconsciously manifesting the cultural memory of his Irish American and Indo-European ancestors through his artistic religious creations: which grew out from his own subconscious and cultural heritage. So that while Smith saw himself as a restorer of "true Christianity," by becoming more of a restorer ancient Israelite religion, I think what he was actually doing (as perhaps only someone of Indo-European lineage could do) was restoring the ancient Indo-European aristocratic ethos.

My working theory is that Joseph Smith was subconsciously forming an expanded version of the further "Germanization of Christianity," just as many other Christians of European descent had done previously. For more details on this process of how Indo-European energy influenced Christianity over time, see the book The Germanization of Medieval Christianity by James Russell. Joseph Smith's version of this further germanization process was in my view the best version so far of an "Anglo-European Christianity."

I think Smith was subconsciously creating a hybrid religion, by combining both the Indo-European religion of his European ancestors and mixing it together with elements from  post-Constantinian Romanized Christianity and pro-American Freemasonry. Previous versions of the germanization of Christianity by others has been called Arthurian Christianity or "Muscular Christianity." In this sense, "Mormon Christianity" can be seen as an expansion of this germanization and masculinization of Christianity. A good example of this germanization process is what's known as the Saxon Gospel called The Heiland. I think Joseph Smith is doing the same thing as The Heiland, only Smith had enough confidence and chutzpah to take it further by completely replacing much of the Pauline "leveling" ideas. For example, Paul's ideas had sought to basically gene swap out Gentile blood and replace violent zealous insurrectionists against Rome with Pauline men who are pro-Rome and instead of fighting becoming docile, celibate, martyrs. This was a useful strategy in the first century as I argue in my web page The Phases and Strategies of God, but centuries had past and now American had been founded. So a new strategy was needed for the next phase of God's People. Enter Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery with a new pro-American Christianity arising from their patriotic heritage and from Joseph Smith's Indo-European nature in particular there emerged a theology of heroic hierarchical acescent toward breeding a New Peoplehood. 

Before I continue, note that I am building off my other website solar pantheonism, where I explain the meaning of the term Indo-European and the ancient religion I call solar pantheonism. 

The way I see it, Joseph Smith was subconsciously infusing the Indo-European ethos into Christianity, just as the Apostle Paul had subconsciously infused the Maccabean martyr tradition, Stoicism, and the Roman mystery religions into his religion which was essentially an apocalyptic Messianic version of Judaism. So that what Joseph Smith is doing, as I see it, is he is replacing the Pauline cultus of suffering and the imitation of a suffering Messiah (through radical pacifism and voluntary poverty, celibacy, and voluntary martyrdom) with instead Joseph Smith systematically replacing the Pauline ideas that many see as an emasculating ideology, with a more pro-masculine Indo-European ethos of self-overcoming and triumphalism exaltation to exaltation. Starting with Joseph Smith's condemning the Shaker movement which was promoting celibacy in D&C 49; and Joseph Smith restoring the Hebrew Bible's concept of an embodied God with a phallus, who had a wife or consort; and reinstating the practices of polygamist patriarchs like Abraham. So that by restoring ancient Israelite religion, he was simultaneously restoring a form of solar pantheonism: for original Judaism was also a solar religion with a pantheon, with the deity Jehovah likely originating from the Canaanite Pantheon; and just like the Vikings who were polygamous, the ancient Hebrew religion also practiced polygamy. 

The ancient Israelites had a long history of defeats, from the Babylonians to the Romans who destroyed the temple in 70 AD; and this led to more of a focus on the beaten, enslaved and downtrodden, etc. Paul then combined the collective memory of this Jewish heritage with an apocalyptic vision of his Messiah coming back very soon to enforce an egalitarian Utopia. So that the pursuit of power, wealth, and progeny (as was the ethos of the Indo-European mythos), was rejected in the Pauline mythos. Instead of a focus on conquest, success and posterity as in Indo-European traditions, Paul emphasized suffering and defeat and death as a celibate martyr as the new ideal. 

In his article Indo-European Conquest in Myth, Fortress of Lugh explains the Indo-European Godhead and pantheon, and when you learn about this you realize that the Pauline corpus had presented not a triumphal conquering mentality but instead an attitude of giving in to your enemy and being conquered by them willingly, because by suffering and "losing" you're imitating the Paul's suffering Messiah; with the intent being to "lose on earth" in order to "win in the afterlife." See the book Unmanly Men by Brittany Wilson, where she explains that much of the New Testament is designed to basically emasculate men mythologically. In that, it rejects biological masculinity and the male drives for territory, status, and strength (as exemplified in the Indo-European Ethos); and instead promotes being "good" or "pious" (or pleasing God) as giving away your wealth and seeking a lower status, and not fighting and dominating but being willfully dominated and even penetrated and supernaturally inseminated with divine seed as a "male-bride of a male-messiah." Through this Pauline path of being subjugated, bullied, penetrated, and emasculated,  and tortured to death as a martyr, you are more and more uniting with Christ and merging with this Messiah-deity taught in the Pauline mystery religion. I cover this in more detail in my blog post here: where I compare Paul and Joseph Smith.

In contrast to Paul, Joseph Smith is returning to the Indo-European energy of heroic conquest, vitality and fertility. For example, rather than the ideal of Pauline celibate martyrs as inseminated male-brides, Smith instead created a mythos of Supercouples and manly warriors: even forming a military militia and he invented a temple ritual using Freemasonry and Egyptian symbols like the god Min, with the temple ritual ending as a fertility rite: where the male seed is said to propagate eternally (which is more in line with Indo-European religion). 

I took the following screenshot picture below, which depicts the Indo-European Peoples on horses that captures the triumphal energy of Indo-European spirituality and vitality as shown below:

 

Click on Image to Enlarge

Source: Indo-European Conquest in Myth by Fortress of Lugh YouTube Channel

In the video linked above he points out that the European gods were more masculine; and this is what Joseph Smith restores is the concept of Indo-European sky father as warrior and conqueror. Here is an ancient artifact that summarizes the Proto Indo European Peoples as horse riders revering the Sun:

 

Trundholm sun chariot, Nordic Bronze Age, c. 1600 BC

(Image source)

I think this artifact above succinctly represents European religion. For it from the Indo-Europeans that we likely get the idea of a "Father God" dwelling above in the sky, shining his light upon us as it was in part a personification of the daylight sky (as depicted below):

 

(Image Source

For more details see: Dyēus, The Proto-Indo-European Sky God by Michael Roy.

I see this Indo-European energy being filtered through Joseph Smith who had Indo-European ancestry: in that I see Joseph Smith funneling thousands of years of heroic success and conquest within his inherited genetic memory from his ancestors (passed onto him unconsciously); and so he projected that cultural memory into the Book of Mormon (which I will cover below). Joseph Smith was not just strong and tall like his Indo-European ancestors, but he had an insatiable drive for conquest and domination. He was so ambitious that he does not just create a new religion and marry dozens of wives and become a mayor, a judge, and a military General, but he also crowned himself King while running for US President! These are not the actions of a humble and meek, pacifist, acting out the Pauline ethos of a docile celibate martyr. This was a man who despite his many faults and foibles, was a volcanic eruption of Indo-European vitality.

The Solar Mythos in Mormonism 

There are a lot of obvious solar imagery in both the New Testament and Mormon Scriptures. Here are just a few examples:

• D&C 88

• Lecture 2 on the "The Father of Lights"

• The many Book of Mormon Sunlight metaphors

Ancient Indo-European Pantheonism:

Here is a summary of the ethnolinguistic Indo-European language tree, visually summarized below:

Source 

Here is a summary of the Indo-European Daylight Father God and the various Indo-European languages on ways the deity was named:

....

Examples of Proto Indo European Pantheons:

Click on Image to Enlarge

......

Click to enlarge 
 

The Mormon Gods and the heroes of the Book of Mormon can be seen as archetypical representations of the ancient Indo-European solar sky deity and pantheon, that is manifest in the re-mythologized and Americanized-Christ of the Book of Mormon: manifesting as a more Indo-European type of God that literally shines like the radiant Sun on his disciples in 3 Nephi and who has chosen to visit North America after his resurrection: with a message that was meant for both Native Americans and Indo-Europeans living on the American continent in the 1800s; so that the re-envisioned Christ of Mormonism is not just the "portraits of Jesus" depicted in the New Testament (as a Jew speaking mostly only to fellow Jews); but, is now, as the resurrected Christ a much more European type of deity that is being funneled through the revelations of the Irish American Joseph Smith (not just the Benjamite apostle Paul in the Middle East); with Smith, as an Indo-European, filtering into his revelations a more pro-American message from the resurrected Christ. So that Christ does not just speak through the Benjamite Paul or the author of Mathew's gospel, etc. But now Christ is speaking directly to an American and sending a newer message filtered through the Indo-European Joseph Smith. 

Whether or not Smith was actually channeling the will of Jesus by revelation (like Paul claimed), or he was mistaken, is not as important to me (as there are many forged documents in the New Testament itself); so I find it to be more interesting to ask whether or not Smith's ethos is an overall positive and healthy message that affirms life? In other words, which version of Christianity, Paul's or Joseph's, is more useful as a religion offering more practical advice for today in competitive and capitalist family-oriented North America?

Mormon Gods & Characters as Indo-European:

As I see it, some of the Mormon Gods and heroes are very similar to other Gods and heroes in the various Indo-European solar pantheons. Note that because, in Mormonism, exalted humans become Gods in Jehovah's Realm, then the dead and now spirit-bodied Moroni for example, can be viewed as having the status of a God or divine being (a member of the Elohim or divine holy ones, to use Michael Heiser's language). Here is just a few speculative ways I've listed below on how one could integrate and synthesize the Indo-European divine archetypes with Mormonism. The equal sign  (=) means similar to:

• Lehi = Zeus (as an archetype)

• Captain Moroni = Thor (archetype)

• Ammon = Ares 

• Nephites = Ancestors of Vikings (Scandinavians)

• God the Father = Dyḗus ph₂tḗr (literally "Father Daylight," compare Lecture 2:2); as well being archetypically Min and/or Odin 

• Heavenly Mother = Mary the mother of Jesus, and/or archetypically Freyja or Frigg 

• Jesus = A Composite Character as Stoic Sage; Mithras; as well as the god of wine named Dionysus, and the god of regrowth after death named Persephone 

There is actually a lot of LDS products sold and LDS literature emphasizing the heroic nature of the Book of Mormon characters. For example see Mormonism’s Heroes by Lisa M.

As I see it, Joseph Smith’s most famous sermon, the King Follett Discourse, is a synthesis of Indo-European mythology with the Hebrew Bible. For example, in the Icelandic religion Asatru, one is to become more like the Norse gods and goddess as they are archetypes for human potential and personal excellence. I think Joseph Smith indirectly revived this idea by describing God as an ascending deity, in a divine hierarchy, as a role model for higher evolution; wherein Smith argues that God is not some disembodied nothingness being without parts or passions (as found in the Nicene Creed), but instead God the Father has a body and even has celestial coitus just like many of the Indo-European gods. In fact, in the King Follett Discourse, Smith says that God is "God" not because he is a perfect and static Being, but because he was once a man and exercised his ability to gain power and dominion by building his own dynastic kingdom, which is what made him "God": and the model for all humans to follow in growing toward deification. In fact, the human spirit (or intelligence) is co-eternal with God (Abr. 3:18)  while the form of the human soul is somehow born of Heavenly Parents (a Father and Mother God). This aligns more with the Indo-European concept of the Gods being born from other Gods in divine families (pantheons). Smith's idea of people's souls being "godlike" as eternal spirits and co-eternal with the Head God, and men potentially becoming Gods, also sounds closer to the part human, part divine, demigods in Indo-European mythology. Note that the New Testament is also heavily influenced by Indo-European mythology regarding "virgin births," the Eucharist and deification, etc. 

The Vikings 

There is a reason that paintings (shown below) of Book of Mormon characters were depicted as Indo-European Vikings by Arnold Friberg (note the "horned helmet" in the first image below is clearly signifying Viking imagery):

Source

The Book of Mormon can thus be seen in a way as the restoration of solar pantheonism and Indo-European energy, for example in this video by The Ark channel, the author points out that the Founding Fathers of America were Deists and implemented a lot of Indo-European spirituality and philosophy into America; and according to many people, Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon was influenced by the book The Late War.  The Joseph Smith Foundation does a lot of good work showing how much Mormonism is a very pro-American religion, for example see the videos here, here, here, and here. After watching these videos with host Hannah Stoddard, it became clear to me that LDS Scriptures are very much an Indo-European ethnolinguistic product of the Irish American Joseph Smith and how his scriptures and revelations affirms the nobility and sacrifices of British and Scandinavian peoples in how they fought and died to produce the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution (which is a divine document in Mormonism). 

The Joseph Smith Foundation also presents an interesting theological theory that some of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon may have migrated North and mixed their genes with the Norse Vikings (Scandinavians). In my article here, I point out that even if this theory can't be proven historically or scientifically, I think it is at the very least archetypically true: in that I think Joseph Smith was filtering into the text of the Book of Mormon the European Spirit through his own European ancestry when creating the characters and stories of the Nephites. Interestingly, in one of his books, Dan Vogel argues that Joseph Smith was carrying on the idea which was popular at the time that Native Americans originated from a previous "white" or Caucasian race. See this web article here and the section Part 3: Two Interesting Articles from "Oliver Old school's" Port Folio issues of June and July, 1816. This would mean that the Joseph Smith had in the back of his mind perhaps subconsciously at least, that Europeans were Nephites archetypically. When you combine that with the historical fact the Vikings did visit North America, it's not completely farfetched to imagine the Nephites as having become Scandinavian Vikings or Nordic Europeans as archetypes of heroic nobility. Since all religion is myth-making to a large  degree then I also find it empowering as a European to think of the Nephites as often being depicted archetypically -- through Joseph Smith's unconscious -- as Europeans and American heroes.

The Northern European Christ 

In one of Joseph Smith's First Vision versions he apparently describes Jesus as blue-eyed. In BYU Studies Quatrterly Volume 59, Number 2, 2020, on page 275, footnote 104 we read:

Joseph’s 1835 account says, “A  personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee.” “Journal, 1835–1836,” 24, emphasis added. Alexander Neibaur’s account agrees: “Saw a personage in the fire light complexion blue eyes a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders his right arm bear after a while a other person came to the side of the first.” “Alexander Neibaur, Journal, 24 May 1844, extract,” [23], emphasis added.

 

I'm not here making any claims about the actual features of the historical Jesus. For this is only Neibaur's recollection. One should also keep in mind that this is describing the resurrected Christ, who as a divine being is often said to appear as if like the Sun, radiant and bright and even fiery and when fire is at its hottest it has a blue color. I'm only pointing out the possibility that the canonized scriptures that came through Joseph Smith were filtered through his European lens. It is clear to me that while the apostle Paul as a Benjamite living in the Middle East, thought "Gentiles" needed to be literally transformed into Israelites in order to be delivered from the imminent coming wrath, with Paul not thinking at all about God having anything to do with European ethnicities in the West; in contrast, when Joseph Smith began channeling the voice of Christ like Paul claimed but through his Irish American ancestry, a new pro Americanist gospel emerges. John Turner titled his book, The Mormon Jesus: A Biography. I think he could have just as equally titled it The American Jesus.

(source)

If you think about it, the writings of Paul is the alleged voice of Jesus being funneled through the Benjamite Paul as Middle Eastern man who thought Jesus was coming back in his lifetime when all mortal life would be annihilated; and thus he did not think about the European peoples far away in the West. The LDS Doctrine and Covenants in contrast is the voice of Christ being funneled through the European American Joseph Smith. So of course his theology is more affirming of Europeans and Americans. The Apostle Paul simply lived 2000 years ago with a more primitive Middle Eastern religious mindset espousing ideas most American men actually don't like or ignore (i.e. the ideal of celibacy, pacifism, or "male-brides seeded by a male-messiah." All of those ideas may have been useful as a strategy during that phase of Christianity (which I discuss and defend here), but as an American male myself, I can say that today those Pauline ideas are simply impractical and not useful for thriving today. 

I am not alone in thinking this, Nietzsche said this over a century ago; and young males like the author of The Ark are echoing the same thing. For example, in his article Why A Pagan Revival is Necessary: A Practical Look at Why Christianity Fails Where European Paganism Succeeds by The Ark (Oct 06, 2025), he quotes several New Testament verses that are problematic for navigating life today as a capitalist North American. As I read these verses at the end of his article I could not help but think that Joseph Smith's Americanized gospel remedies these passages with Smith's scriptures saying things like it is good to gain riches in order to do good, that Mormons should not be celibate like the Shakers of the 1800s, and a Christian should defend their friends, families, and land and country!

Joseph Smith grew up in America with European ancestry as a descendant of American warriors, and thus in my opinion he's a better filter of the Christ phenomenon for Americans.

The Mormon Jesus, according to the LDS Articles of Faith even elevates European LDS Christians as those who gather in the Lost tribes of Israel to North America!

The All American Book of Mormon 

We who are of Indo-European descent living in North America have lost our identity to a large degree. There is a distinct feeling in our culture today and that one should not be proud of their American Heritage and certainly not their European ancestry. The Joseph Smith Foundation rightly points out that there does seem to be a systematic attack on the Indo-European Founders of our North America government and Anglo-Saxon American culture. I see Mormonism as a native ancestral religion  that indirectly taps into the archetypal energy of the Indo-European peoples. As I see it, Mormonism is at its core just as much an Indo-European Americanist religion as much as it is a universalist faith: which it certainly is with for example The Book of Mormon inviting all to come to Christ in 2 Nephi 26:33, which states, "God denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God" So LDS Scripture is this unique blend, containing both ethnolinguistic Indo-European spirituality combined with a universalist ambition to invite all ethnicities into one Global Family through Christ. So that you have LDS Scripture saying that "contention is of the devil" and has the goal of eventually having no "manner of -ites" in creating Zion with no rich or poor; but then it also contains that American Spirit where the Founding Fathers broke free of the British Empire by fighting for freedom rather than choosing to be dominated as pacifist martyrs. 

So it's no surprise that pro-America books clearly influenced Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Mormon. Let's discuss some of those books that scholars think influenced Smith's formation of the Book of Mormon. On page 105 of his book Restoring Christ, author Grant Palmer writes about some likely sources that inspired Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. In discussing what likely influenced the sections of the Book of Mormon, he writes:

Alma 43-63: These war chapters reflect the war strategies of the American Indian Wars and the War of 1812, especially the British/Indian fighting strategies used against the American soldiers in the War of 1812. Smith heard his relatives and neighbors recount stories of these wars. For some of this evidence, see Mercy Otis Warren’s 1805 book, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution;and David Ramsey’s 1789 book, History of the American Revolution.

Palmer presents this as a criticism but I interpret this as a positive feature because some of my own great-grandfather's fought in these same American North American wars. So if the Book of Mormon captures the energy of my own ancestors, I see that as a positive!

Here are some other sources that many people think influenced the contents of the Book of Mormon:

The First Book of Napoleon and The Late War:

Rather than seeing this as a criticism of Mormonism, as many ex-mormons do, I personally see it as unconventionally faith promoting in a way, that is if one has a more sophisticated unorthodox way of thinking of a "testimony" wherein they see the Irish (i.e. Indo-European) Joseph Smith revitalizing ancient solar pantheonism. So I see it as a positive that Joseph Smith was most likely influenced by the content of the book The Late War. As Audible.com summarizes the book The Late War:

The Late War Between the United States and Britain is a historical text written by Gilbert J. Hunt and published in 1816. The book presents itself as a retelling of the War of 1812 in the style of the King James Bible, combining historical events with biblical language and tone. It is often referred to as a patriotic children's book due to its intended audience and its attempt to teach young listeners about the war in a moral and religious context. In the book, Hunt narrates the events of the War of 1812 in a simplified and dramatic manner, portraying the conflict as a righteous struggle between good and evil. The battles and key moments of the war are depicted through allegorical language, drawing parallels to biblical tales of valor and triumph. Through this unique presentation, the author seeks to instill a sense of national pride and virtue in young American listeners, framing the war as a divine mission to defend liberty and uphold American values.

Although The Late War Between the United States and Britain was popular in its time and contributed to the growth of American nationalism. It is also important to note that it is frequently credited with being a primary source of inspiration for the invention of the Book of Mormon, authored by Joseph Smith and then published in 1830.

The idea that Joseph Smith as an American was influenced by the American Patriotism surrounding him as an Indo-European and an American, is not for me in any way a problem if one embraces Blake Ostler's "expansion theory of the Book of Mormon." As this website explains: 

… there must be several texts that were borrowed from [to produce the Book of Mormon]. The one that hit me the hardest is plagiarism from George Washington's letter to Canada. It's basically Captain Moroni's speech about fighting for their lives and liberty, etc.

… link here ...

Relevant section:

“Above all, we rejoice, that our Enemies have been deceived with Regard to you—They have persuaded themselves, they have even dared to say, that the Canadians were not capable of distinguishing between the Blessings of Liberty, and the Wretchedness of Slavery; that gratifying the Vanity of a little Circle of Nobility—would blind the Eyes of the People of Canada.—By such Artifices they hoped to bend you to their Views, but they have been deceived, instead of finding in you that Poverty of Soul, and Baseness of Spirit, they see with a Chagrin equal to our Joy, that you are enlightened, generous, and virtuous—that you will not renounce your own Rights, or serve as Instruments to deprive your Fellow Subjects of theirs.—Come then, my Brethren, unite with us in an indissoluble Union, let us run together to the same Goal.—We have taken up Arms in Defence of our Liberty, our Property, our Wives, and our Children, we are determined to preserve them, or die. We look forward with Pleasure to that Day not far remote (we hope) when the Inhabitants of America shall have one Sentiment, and the full Enjoyment of the Blessings of a free Government.”

Audible.com summarizes The First Book of Napoleon: The Tyrant of the Earth by Eliakim The Scribe, this way:

This book written ostensibly by the writer "Eliakim the Scribe" was a book written about the tyrant of the time: Napoleon Bonaparte. Written in early modern English, the book feels like a reading of history, in the language of the Holy Bible. The history of Napoleon Bonaparte is recounted and the listener learns the ups and downs of the reign of one of the greatest conquerors in history. As one of the few popular works written in the 1800s in the language of the 1600s …

Knowing that the book on Napoleon and The Late War are about real people, a real Napoleon, a real war of the United States against Britain, makes the military tactics and lessons of the Book of Mormon more real and even useful strategically. So that even if one were to conclude that the Lamanites and Nephites are fictional characters, what they represent symbolically is real: representing not only aspects of Joseph Smith's own Indo-European biology and autobiography, but also the ancient heroic ideal: that can be traced back to ancient Indo-European traditions and solar pantheonism. 

The evidence that Joseph Smith was influenced by patriotic American literature is clear in my view. If one wishes to study this see: 

• letterformywife.com/part-three-the-book-of-mormon 

• The View of the Hebrews

•  The American Revolution 

• The Adventures of Jacob H. Jackson 

• The Philosophy of a Future State

• Reddit.com/latterdaysaints on_the_late_war

• Wordtree.org presentation of the-late-war-and the-book-of-mormon/ 

• Wordtree.org/thelatewar  

• George Washington & Captain Moroni by YosTRwaNelg

• Other American voices (e.g. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Paine, Declaration of Independence) that influenced Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon

For more detail see the first section "The Settler Worldview" in the book Joseph Smith: The Architect of Mormonism, A Topical Biography by Ganesh Cherian. The Book of Mormon is thus very much a hybrid document, mixing Evangelical voices like Jonathon Edwards with Americans like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Thus, in my view it is an approvement on the New Testament, as the authors of the New Testament endorsed "the divine right of kings" rather than democracy, etc. As explained by EP Sanders in his lecture, Is Paul Relevant for Today?

So as I see it Mormonism is the funneling of British, Germanic and Scandinavian (i.e. Indo-European) ethnolinguistic cultural memory into the main body of the first Mormons living in Utah, as an Indo-European Tribe that became a vibrant and healthy Peoplehood. In fact, my very own European ancestors on both sides of my family, were part of the very British and Scandinavian peoples who migrated to Utah to form this ethnolinguistic European Ephraimite tribe of proud Americans.

So my "unconventional testimony" is that what is real, which no one denies is one's tribal ancestral roots and their people that is embedded in their DNA and evidenced by linguistics, archeology, and culture, etc. So based on the book Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy by Costin Alamariu, and Nietzsche's concept of the Great Health, then what is real is the growth of the Mormon People as a quasi-ethnic Indo-European tribe and culture. So that Joseph Smith's scriptures, even if "untrue historically" and "scientifically" if taken literally, can still be nevertheless"more than true" metaphorically through the point of view of what Jordan Peterson calls Maps of Meaning. In other words, Mormonism can be functioning as Maps of Meaning for modern Americans that in parts acts as the means to the end of the biological growth of a real Indo-European tribe of people. For that is exactly what was achieved, the growth of a Peculiar People in the 1800s in Utah, where mostly British and Scandinavian people migrated there to form an Ephraimite tribe; and then post 1900, the LDS Church culturally evolved and over time became more of a universalist faith converting millions of people in all countries among all ethnicities. But, in the first about 150 years, Mormonism was mostly more of a pro-American, Indo-European Peoplehood, by converting those from Britain and Scandinavia (the "northern countries") and persuading them to gather in Utah to form the Kingdom of Zion as an Ephraimite People. This gave the first Mormons a powerful identity and a sense of a deep rooted belonging as a literal spiritual tribe called Ephraim. I go into more detail about this on my webpage linked below: 

19th Century Anglo-Nordic Mormons in America as a Quasi-Ethnic Tribe of Ephraim: As the First Stage in Growing a Zion People

From Pauline message to the Americanist restored gospel

The video Conservatives are Wrong. America was Never a Christian Country by The Ark YouTube Channel, makes an interesting argument that America was founded on the Indo-European Spirit. I then thought that if you combine the American Seal of the eagle and arrows of war, with the book Late War and the book on Napoleon, you can see that the Book of Mormon is an Americanist gospel:

Source

So while Joseph Smith is a patriotic American with an Indo-European vitality, he is also influenced by Methodist Pietism and Pentecostal-type charismatic performances of the Evangelical Protestant Preaches at the Tent Revivals in the 1820s depicted below: 

(Source)

All of the above influences, the pietism, camp meetings, John Edwards, American patriotism, and Joseph Smith's own biological Indo-European ancestry, all went into Joseph Smith's production of the Book of Mormon.

If we take the perspective of the Book of Mormon as a kind of midrash, then the historicity does not matter as much as the value of the inspiring and practical truthfulness of the overall pro-European/pro-American message. In his article The Book of Mormon as Symbolic History, Jess Groesbeck writes: 

My claim that the Book of Mormon should be understood primarily as a symbolic, not literal, history, we must look at the way we as humans structure our worlds through myths—the highly symbolic narratives that speak of origins and primordial powers but also weave together the disparate elements of our experience in such a way that we can understand our place within an overarching story.[2] All mythos has a structure, an internal logic that helps us feel oriented within the world. ... 

...  By the beginning of the nineteenth century, a virtual crisis existed, a crying need for accommodation between the two groups as white Europeans began to colonize and move across the North American continent. In New England and New York—where Joseph Smith and his ancestors lived—the Christian influence of the Puritans and European fathers was, in the minds of many of the foreign settlers, beginning to take second place to the native consciousness. Fascination with the New World, with Indian and Spanish treasures, and with the magic of shamanistic medicine men was beginning to dominate—something that was intolerable to Christian leaders.[14] ...

... If such a symbolic answer could arise during the time of intense psychic dissonance in which Joseph Smith lived, what would it include? Certainly, the following issues seem to be pertinent:

• If two cultures so disparate as the white European and American Indian were to find an acceptable accommodation, there would have to be some way to find common ground in their relationship, perhaps by establishing a similar genealogical heritage.

• There would need to be some harmonization of their religious views, suggesting ways they might work helpfully together.

• The answer would need to include a plan or program whereby each would be able to fit into the other’s way of living.

With these criteria in mind, let’s take a close look at the Book of Mormon as a symbolic historical answer to this critical problem of cultural assimilation. How does the Book of Mormon perform this symbolic function?

First, it states that the American Indian (again speaking of native peoples collectively and not individually, even though as tribes they are quite different) and the white European have a common ancestry in that they both go back to Israelite origins. The book settles the question of whether or not the Indian is a child of Adam. It weighs in on the “Lost Ten Tribes”

issue by saying, no, the Indian is actually closely related to Ephraim; he is also a son of Joseph through Manasseh. The book teaches that America is a promised land to both the Indian and the European, as both were led to its shores by the hand of God.

...  Finally, through its speaking “from the dust,” the Book of Mormon restores a knowledge of how both parties can freely relate in a meaningful and humane way with one another. In its stories of Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah, and especially the depiction of a Zion society in 4 Nephi—a society in which there was not “any manner of -ites”—the Book of Mormon depicts principles by which the groups can successfully live together in peace and as “one, [the] Children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God (4 Ne. 1:17). But even as it models successes, the Book of Mormon also warns of mutual destruction should we fail to heed its many lessons. 

... I believe that through its stories and teachings, the Book of Mormon became for its time, and still is today, a “divine third,” a spectacular example of a highly symbolic solution that allows for accommodation of polar opposites without compromising the integrity or power of either. It is a cultural-symbolic bridge that performs a wondrous shamanic balancing act. It was brought forth through the powerful healing gifts of a young shaman, who grew up in a region of a fledgling nation in particular tension, not only between Native Americans and the European immigrants, but between the power of Indian spirituality and treasure lore and the totalizing message of the Christian gospel. Besides its many other functions, of which Shipps hints above, the Book of Mormon, taken from gold plates dug from a hill, is also a “third” for the disrespected, treasure-seeking Smith family, a symbolic assertion of the value and power of both their folk and Christian traditions. ... 

...  I HAVE EXAMINED the Book of Mormon as a product of grand symbolic processes that touch on archetypal themes in the collective unconscious and unleash associated energies in the way described by Jung. Though the Book of Mormon’s specific origins can be located in the tensions between European and Indian cultures, it is clear from its far reaching influence that it can also be applied helpfully to issues in hundreds of cultures and without regard to particular historical contexts. ...

Smith Evolved from Evangelical Methodist Pietism (1829-1834) toward a more Indo-European Freemasonic Vitality After 1835:

After studying Hebrew in 1835, Smith began to become even more Indo-European in his outlook and practices. So that "Post-1835 Nauvoo Mormonism" moved further and further away from its earlier Evangelical-Edwardian dogmas to become more humanistic and Deist via Freemasonry. As I see it, post-1835, Mormonism was even more Indo-European: by becoming a more pro-body theo-philosophy; as well as embracing the Renaissance Enlightenment, the doctrine of spirit-matter (a version of rational physicalism) and the ancient Hebrew plurality of Gods. So that later 1840s Mormonism shifts away from 1830s Evangelical Edwardianism to become a more Indo-European religion, as seen in these bullet points:

• Freemasonic influence  

• God depicted as the Egyptian phallic god Min

• The restoration of the Hebrew Bible practice of plural marriage in order to raise up an Ephraimite seed

• The Nauvoo Temple ritual affirming the biological body as a pro-body fertility rite 

All these elements replaced the Augustinian and Edwardian turn-or-burn rhetoric and the Pauline martyr-centric, celibate-ideal and bodiless deity of the Creeds; by moving away from the Pauline corpus (based in part on the Maccabean tradition) and the ideas in the Nicene Creed (that emphasized a bodiless deity), LDS theology moved more toward ancient Indo-European solar pantheonism via the ancient Israelite pantheon and imagery from the Egyptian pantheon (as found upon the Egyptian papyrus). So that through the Renaissance Enlightenment and the Deism within Freemasonry and the more life-affirming energy of the Hebrew Bible (which even Nietzsche advocated), combined with the imagery of the phallic Egyptian god Min, Joseph Smith restored ancient Indo-European Solar Pantheonism through his later post-1835 Mormon Ethos.

Balancing Tribal Hierarchy and Sensuality with Communal Kindness and Hospitality

What Mormonism does as a whole is balance our tribal nature -- our drives for procreation, gaining territory, status, and power -- with our other drives to form community through solidarity, kindness, and hospitality. So I put together these illustrations below combing LDS Scripture verses with various LDS images with the image on the left of each illustration being the Yin (Feminine, Passive, Receptive, Chaotic) and on the right the Yang (Masculine, Active, Dominating, Ordering):

.....

What I tried to show in my illustrations above is a balancing of Yin and Yang which I see as a result of Joseph Smith's integrating the Pauline leveling ideas of passivity, meekness, and receptive kindness with the Americanist ideals of freedom fighting and conquest and adventurism. For Smith being Indo-European was naturally subconsciously filtering his ancestral memories into his scriptures that created in my view a balanced version of the Old and New Testament as a restored gospel. 

Defense of Polygamy as Selective Breeding and A Co-Chosen People to Elevate Indo-Europeans as a Lost Tribe of Israel

The Book of Mormon was the first stage in the development of Mormonism. Joseph Smith found it useful to use Evangelical Protestant language to gain converts; for example he explains using the voice of the Lord that the hell fire and brimstone language of a permanent hell in the Book of Mormon was used only as  means of working upon the reader to convert them (see D&C 19). By the mid 1830s Smith had moved to other means to gain converts and impede dissidents, by moving toward an appeal to natural hierarchy, to political advancement in the priesthood, the threat of destruction for some (see D&C 132) and the motive of additional wives in order to expand one's future kingdom throughout the eternities.  In this way, Joseph's myth-making, moved the Mormons' consciousness more toward an Indo-European consciousness of life as the drive to thrive (the lifeward impulse to compete to expand or decline and go extinct). Today, Utah is thriving as mostly Indo-Europeans, many of whom like myself, have polygamous Mormon ancestors that often competed for wives which selected for certain traits; as they gathered as a tribe to grow a Peoplehood, and many practiced plural marriage based on the belief that those who would be crowned kings and queens in eternity were the most elite and chosen Ephraimites that entered into plural marriage.

From this perspective, Smith was seeking to gather "European Ephraimites" from the northern countries as a restoration of both the Hebrew Bible and the Indo-European Spirit. Polygamy itself begins to make more sense from this perspective as well. For the core philosophical doctrine of the Indo-Europeans was selective breeding as covered in the book Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy by Costin Alamariu. When one sees that the core doctrine of Indo-Europeans is not utopian leveling but competition and hierarchy of merited excellence and dominion, then the competition among the early LDS General Authorities for wives makes sense. For Smith has reinvigorated the ancient agon, the drive to compete, win, overcome, conquer and gain power and dominion. This competition for wives is illustrated in Orson Hyde's 1847 Kingdom of God diagram. This hierarchical concept of merited hHeavenly ascent among the most powerful and virile of men with good character, ensured that certain men’s Indo-European genes were selected for and spread through offspring; resulting in certain personality types and character traits I discuss here. 

Polygamy also ensured the funneling of Indo-Europeans into the main body of LDS membership in the 1800s. As one critic said sarcastically of Orson Hyde (who had 7 wives) in the book Wife number 19, on page 579:

[Apostle Orson Hyde] is a practical polygamist, as are all the rest, but he has a convenient way of utilizing the system. He marries a cook, a laundress, a sempstress, a dairy-maid, or any servant he may happen to need. It is so much cheaper to marry domestics than to hire them. Under the latter arrangement he would be compelled to pay them for their services, while by the former he is only obliged to give them shelter, food, and clothing. His wives represent nearly every nationality, and when visitors come to the house, the first Mrs. Hyde introduces her husband's other wives, as " Mr. Hyde's German wife, Mr. Hyde's English wife, Mr. Hyde's Danish wife," and so on, until all are presented.

Note the funneling of Indo-European genes underneath the sarcasm. Charlemagne spawned most Europeans and the Bible's Abraham used his polygamist genes to spawn the Israelites through such specific lineage the Messiah was born (as he had to be of the Israelite royal Davidic lineage). So why criticize the Mormons for what the Bible itself endorses and advocates as holy? 

Abraham's genes were selected by God to produce the Israelites

Jesus needed to come through a specific genetic lineage to be considered the Messiah. So what Joseph Smith was doing had biblical precedent,  as the idea of a genetic linage and a "chosen people," a chosen lineage, is all over the Bible. 

Paul himself believed Gentiles needed to have their genes replaced with Jewish genes via the seed of the Messiah Jesus, which I cover here. By declaring himself seer and revelator, Smith was able to expand upon the Pauline corpus, so that Europeans were not second class citizens but Ephraimites. Smith begins writing himself into the Book of Genesis, see JST Genesis chapter 50; and being the "choice seer" of the loins of Joseph in the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 3:4–22. Hence, as an Irish American, Smith made himself into an Israelite Ephraimite and thus not a second class lineage with no need of gene swapping. 

So in a way Joseph was expanding the Jewish concept of a "chosen people" to include Indo-Europeans as Ephraimites as the expanded chosen people who are in charge of gathering all Israel to North America which is  treated in LDS Scripture as a choice Holy Land.  

This movement away from egalitarian utopianism toward natural hierarchy and generative expansion of the tribe, a cultural people in 1840-1890 Mormonism, can be thought of as the energy of the pre-Pauline mythologies and cultures: from the Canaanite religion (which influenced ancient Israel) to the Vikings, up to the Founding Fathers of America. Thus post-1835 Mormonism began to embrace more of this pre-Pauline ancient "generative heroism," instead of "ascetic castration" mythologies. In this way,  the phallic god Min (representing God the Father in The Book of Abraham), is a direct counteractive correction of the Pauline ideal of the symbolically castrated male ("a eunoch for Jesus") as manifest in Protestant sects like the Shakers (which Joseph Smith directly condemned in D&C 49). Joseph Smith can thus be seen as restoring the ancient masculine heroic expansionism of ancient cultures, in particular the Indo-European solar pantheons within Smith's own cultural heritage (as a Irish British American) and his inherited genetic memory in his collective unconscious as an Indo-European.

The pro-European website The Ark, in the article titled Why A Pagan Revival is Necessary: A Practical Look at Why Christianity Fails Where European Paganism Succeeds, the author says he is producing a "European Bible." Well, I think that is what Joseph Smith was doing as well with his new Amerinist Scriptures, producing a pro-European worldview within his scriptures. This is why Google AI says, "In the Doctrine and Covenants, there are no verses that explicitly mention or favor Europe. Rather, the text focuses on missionary work among the 'Gentiles' in general, which would include European nations. During the early years of the LDS Church, European converts were instrumental in its growth."

I will conclude this post with some verses to ponder as provided by The Joseph Smith Foundation:

3 Nephi 16:7-8:

Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles [i.e. Europeans], that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them. ...

D&C 109:60:

“Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles [i.e. Europeans],.”

1 Nephi 13:23:

“. . .they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.”

3 Nephi 21:12

“And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, . . .”

3 Nephi 23:2

“For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles.”

D&C 107:33, 97:

“The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles [i.e. Europeans], and secondly unto the Jews.”

“And these seventy are to be traveling ministers, unto the Gentiles first [i.e. Europeans] and also unto the Jews.”

D&C 113:7-10:

"Questions by Elias Higbee: What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion—and what people had Isaiah reference to?

He had reference to those [i.e. European Mormons] whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion [see A of F #10 that reads, "Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent ..."], and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by [European Ephraimite] lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost. ...