I will be arguing in this blog series that Nauvoo Era Mormonism (in the 1840s) represents an emerging philosophical and "spiritual" stage of development in Mormonism, as LDS theology moved beyond its more Pauline-Augustinian roots with many body-despising ideas, and instead in the 1840s moved towards a more Germanic/Indo-European spiritual-mythos that affirmed earthly bodily life. Since the Indo-European spirituality proceeds Christianity, it is considered "pagan." Because anything not considered "New Testament Christianity" or (part of the Abrahamic faith traditions) is most often considered "pagan" in how we use the word in common speech. But given the negative connotation of the word "pagan" and the problematic use of the term pagan bringing with it everything from Wicca to New Ageism (which I do not consider Indo-European), I will instead use the better term Indo-European. For "pagan" is to broad a term and means too many things that I would not and I am not ascribing to Mormonism. The term Indo-European is thus a better term. On another site here, I describe Indo-European spirituality as basically "solar-pantheonism."
Just as Nietzsche was not prescribing creed a only right way of life, nor an ethical dogma, but was is offering his way, his perspective, and ideas for future philosophers and ethicists to explore; in the same way, I do not see Joseph Smith's theological philosophy as an endpoint or static dogma. I see Joseph Smith as a kind of higher man, someone who grew up in Augustinian Protestant culture and is trying to break out of it just like Nietzsche did. Joseph, like Nietzsche is creating and exploring, which is obvious to anyone who has studied the development of LDS theology and how much later systemizing took place by the Pratt Brothers and later James Talmage in order to form a cohesive dogma post 1900.
The Spectrum between the Augustinian and the Dionysian
Just as Nietzsche can be criticized for being too reckless at times in exploring a worldview free of Platonism and Augustinianism, so too, as Joseph Smith broke away from the monastic pious mentality of his Puritan Protestant culture of his day, he too was reckless at times and many of his actions became either questionable or unethical depending on the historian examining the data. So yes, in the process of exploring and creating early Mormonism, in some ways Joseph Smith went too far in the opposite direction of body-despising piety and too far in the direction of dionysian expression in the 1840s, which some might consider unethical. In this blog I will not be defending every action of Joseph Smith and I do think he went too far in his expression of the dionysian energy at times. I'm simply presenting a spectrum and contrasting model to the puritanical view. I am not prescribing all of Joseph Smith's behavior by any means.
A main working thesis for this blog series is this: what I learned from Dr. Paul Dobransky's masculine instincts psychology and Nietzsche’s philosophy, is that if you deny the bodily instincts and passions you degenerate internally with repression, neuroticism, or scrupulosity, leading to physiological degeneration and Depresculinity. Dr. Paul Dobransky tries to integrate the highest ideals of a civil society with his MindOS diagram system, combining it with the archetypes of the Greek Gods which represent our masculine or feminine instincts within the rank order of hierarchical Nature, which is built into our human species.
Atomistic Instinctualism
In the process of learning about my Germanic and Scandinavian DNA, which led me to study Norse mythology and contemplating the polytheistic Gods of my Swedish ancestors, I realized that they utilized their mythical pantheon of Gods as an unconscious tool belt for channeling their own masculine and feminine instincts. So that just as Dr. Paul Dobransky learned that the mythical archetypes of the Greek Gods are a useful tool belt, I realized that the Norse Gods provided a similar function. I realized that my own ancestors did not deny the bodily instincts and that just like Dr. Dobransky's utilization of the Greek Gods to represent our unconscious instincts, the Norse Gods provided the same utility for my ancestors. Did this affirmation of the instinctual body through the archetypes of the Norse Gods, lead to the healthy strength and vitality of Germanic and Nordic People? I think so.
Similarly, Joseph Smith, the Pratt Brothers and Orson Hyde did something similar, by producing what I call a theology of atomistic instinctualism. Just like the pro-Nature spirituality of my Norse ancestors, Mormonism posits that all earthly matter is refined “spirit matter,” in other words everything is composed of divine-atoms within atoms. So Nature is not separate from the nature of the Mormon Gods as earthly nature and God's nature are intertwined; which makes the natural world holy and the flesh too is holy. This is the radical philosophy of Nauvoo Era Mormonism. Instead of denying the instincts of the body, Joseph Smith rejected the Nicene Creed that depicts a monotheistic God as a Platonic Form without bodily parts or passions. This concept of a bodiless Form caused people to despise their own body seeking to live up to the impossible idea of a holy god-concept with no body. This led to mental splitting, of the earth as separate from the skyward Platonic Forms. Joseph Smith corrected for this Platonic error by restoring the original ancient Israelite polytheism or henotheism, which today the Christian scholar Michael Heiser acknowledges comes close to acknowledging was the original theology of the Hebrew Bible. Joseph Smith speaks of the Gods plural in the Book of Abraham chapter 4. He also depicts God the Father with an erect phallus in the Book of Abraham in Figure 7 in Facsimile 2; the image of the figure that Joseph Smith called God the Father here is the Egyptian god Min, representing kingly power and procreation. Joseph Smith also recasts Jesus as a more masculine strong man, who in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) “waxes strong” and does not teach that one should pluck out their eye living a body despising monastic lifestyle (see my blog post Insights from The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) on Body-Affirming LDS Christianity). Joseph Smith also depicts Captain Moroni as a mythic heroic figure. Thus, like Dr. Paul’s use of Greek Gods as archetypes and the Norse Gods used by my Swedish ancestors, Joseph Smith did something similar in affirming the bodily instincts through the Gods of Mormonism. So that just as my Norse Viking ancestors were free of body-despising ideas and repressive scrupulosity, Mormonism as a mythopoetic philosophy attempts to do the same thing by redeeming the earthly world through the belief in a God the Father composed of earthly flesh. Thus in my view, Mormonism is Greek Gods and Norse Mythos adjacent, as a kind of gateway theology toward swinging the pendulum away from the Augustinian mentality and more toward what Nietzsche called free spirits who reconnect with the instinctual body and the natural cycles of the earth as metaphorical Hyperboreans: who are freed from body-despising ideologies and embrace the antifragile nature of the natural world.
Just as Nietzsche did not have a problem with the dionysian-inspired Johannine Christian community and the Gospel of John, but rejected the other versions of Christianity that despise the body, and were against the lifeward instincts, Joseph Smith followed a similar trajectory. Joseph Smith, as I see him, was a creative genius seeking to basically mythologize himself out of Augustinianism and Protestant Creedalism, by forming his own body of scripture and a dramatic narrative of Supercouples breaking free of celibate idealism. In doing so, he was able to radically affirm life in the body. However, while I applaud his efforts to affirm the earth and the body, I don’t think his particular Nauvoo era mythologizing is an end point or final goal in creative philosophizing and myth-making. In other words, Nauvoo Era Mormonism was one method for affirming the body and in my view is not an only true dogma; it was one way to move beyond Platonism and Augustinianism. For me, it’s not the final truth or “only pathway to heaven.” I'm not a Fundamentalist Mormon seeking to return to the practice of polygamy, nor do I believe one must follow the Brighamite “covenant path” to be saved and exalted. Nor do I endorse or support all of the tactics that Smith used as a polygamist in Nauvoo. I simply see Nauvoo Era Mormonism as a gateway toward an appreciation of all mythological pathways and philosophies of life that affirm life in the instinctual body. As mythology (not something always factual), Nauvoo Mormonism can inspire us today to move beyond Augustinian Platonism in our own way.
<‐- Augustinian "monkishness" --- <•> --- Nauvoo Era Abrahamic Expansionism ‐‐>
I am simply arguing for respecting the pendulum swing away from body-despising Augustinianism and toward the more bodily life affirming Nauvoo Era Mormonism. This is not to say that there was nothing good or noble in Augustinian Christianity, nor am I saying there was nothing “bad” or problematic in Nauvoo Era Mormonism and the practice of Abrahamic Expansionism; but I do believe the Nauvoo era had practical benefits to it, which I discuss in my blog post on the Selective Birthing of the Mormon People as a Quasi-Ethnic Cultural Identity and a Peoplehood. But to be clear, I am not proscribing Nauvoo era polygamy practices. This is why I am focusing on the descriptive and mythic “spirit of Nauvoo Mormonism” and I am not presenting the Nauvoo era prescriptively. In other words, I am not advocating Joseph's tactics as a polygamist! I am merely presenting the Nauvoo Era as descriptive of how the lifeward instinctual energies found a way to break through the dogmatic damn, the Augustinian stopgap, through the vitality of Joseph Smith and the first Mormons. Was this process messy and were there moral failures? Yes, definitely. But there were also moral failures in the process of shaming humanity into a puritanical straightjacket through the extremes of Augustinianism. Thus, I see two extremes along a spectrum, with the ideal somewhere in the middle.
The Indo-European Spirit of Nauvoo Mormonism
Nietzsche was seeking to revitalize Hellenist culture and I see Joseph Smith doing something similar in the 1840s. Nietzsche wrote in his notes, posthumously compiled and published in the book Will to Power:
We, many or few, who once more dare to live in a world purged of morality, we pagans in faith, we are probably also the first who understand what a pagan faith is: to be obliged to imagine higher creatures than man, but to imagine them beyond good and evil; to be compelled to value all higher existence as immoral existence. We believe in Olympus, and not in the ‘man on the cross.
Nietzsche saw paganism or better put Indo-European spirituality, as the integration of the bodily instincts of lifeward vitality while Augustinian Christianity was the repression and denial of biological life. As he explains:
The Pagan Characteristic. — Perhaps there is nothing more astonishing to the observer of the Greek world than to discover that the Greeks from time to time held festivals, as it were, for all their passions and evil tendencies alike, and in fact even established a kind of series of festivals, by order of the State, for their “all-too-human.” This is the pagan characteristic of their world, which Christianity has never understood and never can understand, and has always combated and despised. — They accepted this all-too-human as unavoidable, and preferred, instead of railing at it, to give it a kind of secondary right by grafting it on to the usages of society and religion.
All in man that has power they called divine, and wrote it on the walls of their heaven. They do not deny this natural instinct that expresses itself in evil characteristics, but regulate and limit it to definite cults and days, so as to turn those turbulent streams into as harmless a course as possible, after devising sufficient precautionary measures. That is the root of all the moral broad-mindedness of antiquity. To the wicked, the dubious, the backward, the animal element, as to the barbaric, pre-Hellenic and Asiatic, which still lived in the depths of Greek nature, they allowed a moderate outflow, and did not strive to destroy it utterly. The whole system was under the domain of the State, which was built up not on individuals or castes, but on common human qualities. In the structure of the State the Greeks show that wonderful sense for typical facts which later on enabled them to become investigators of Nature, historians, geographers, and philosophers. It was not a limited moral law of priests or castes, which had to decide about the constitution of the State and State worship, but the most comprehensive view of the reality of all that is human.
Whence do the Greeks derive this freedom, this sense of reality? Perhaps from Homer and the poets who preceded him. For just those poets whose nature is generally not the most wise or just possess, in compensation, that delight in reality and activity of every kind, and prefer not to deny even evil. It suffices for them if evil moderates itself, does not kill or inwardly poison everything — in other words, they have similar ideas to those of the founders of Greek constitutions, and were their teachers and forerunners.
Note that what Nietzsche means by "evil" is our evolved human instincts themselves, which puritanical Christianity demonized. In other words, in Augustinian Lutheran Christianity, anything other than monastic sainthood was deemed "evil," as the bodily drives and instincts were evil/depraved.
Another way to put it is what Nietzsche referred to as "evil," was what Freud would later call the repression of the unconscious drives. Freud taught that what the religious call "evil" is really just the unconscious instincts which cannot be eradicated but only repressed; but repression can be just has harmful as criminality, in that without a healthy outlet for the so-called "evil instincts" they just boil inwardly like a boiling pot and bubble up and release ot manifest themselves in one way or another. For more information on Nietzsche's perspective of the instincts see Nietzsche and the Human Animal by Academy of Ideas.
As I see it, early Nauvoo Mormonism was an attempt to integrate the “evil”/primal instincts of pride and lust and power-seeking, through the outlet of a kingship polygamous mythology of men-elevating-to-god-kings through becoming exalted in rank via status and power within an ordered hierarchy as depicted in Orson Hyde's Kingdom of God diagram.
I see 1840s-Mormonism as a hybrid religion, Joseph Smith is stuck between his natural instincts (and will to power) and his pious Protestant family upbringing. I see a war of instincts within him (the barking dogs in his cellar as Nietzsche pits it), with his will to power instincts eventually winning out by the 1840s, thus surpassing his prior piety during the time he composed the 1830 Book of Mormon. His former 1830s communistic leveling egalitarian idealism, the end of rank order and differences among men, was at war with his natural instincts. According to Google AI:
Joseph Smith's early attempt to form Zion was based on a doctrine called the Law of Consecration, which he taught in 1830. The Law of Consecration was a voluntary religious egalitarianism doctrine that aimed to create a utopian society called Zion. The doctrine's main principles were:
- Income equality: The doctrine aimed to eliminate poverty and achieve income equality. Group self-sufficiency: The doctrine aimed to increase group self-sufficiency. Religious communism: The doctrine was an attempt to recreate the religious communism practiced by 1st century Christians.
- Group self-sufficiency: The doctrine aimed to increase group self-sufficiency.
The doctrine allowed members of the Church to deed their real estate to the United Order, a Church body. The United Order would then divide and allocate the property to new members as an "inheritance" or "stewardship". (Source)
- Religious communism: The doctrine was an attempt to recreate the religious communism practiced by 1st century Christians.
By the 1840s however this utopian ideal was largely replaced with a rank ordered hierarchy of the most vitally alive, ambitious and sexually active men through wives and concubines, gaining the highest status as higher priests and future god kings in the heavens. Joseph had thus revitalized in his own way what Nietzsche called "the [ancient] pagan faith ..." of imagined "higher creatures than man" and the belief in "Olympus" through Smith's humans becoming Gods akin to Olympus; and the new order of plural marriage and higher priesthood and secular status became divine actions. So that in affect Joseph had reordered morality in Nauvoo: moving the moral ideal away from the ascetic celibate priest and more toward the warrior Hebrew heroes with wives and concubines in the Bible.
We see the early psychological stages of this development toward "Olympus" in the Book of Mormon where there's a strong push for civility and egalitarian utopian peace but then there is also the Strength of the Lord empowering Nephite warriors to win in battle (See In the Strength of the Lord by John Tvedtnes). The same Jesus that preached peace in the New Testament Gospels, as a resurrected being returns to earth in the Americas in 3 Nephi 8-11 to destroy whole cities, even women and children in the process. Joseph Smith would later echoed this duality of God's nature (as described in scripture) in his private letter to Nancy Rigdon in the 1840s, as a way to justify polygamy.
Despite the Book of Mormon having a general overall message of peace, Joseph Smith goes on to retaliate against his enemies by forming a militia and becoming a military General with sword and pistol. He would not "turn the other cheek" and be a passive bullied martyr but was going to fight back. Joseph made this clear with his Nauvoo legion on parade, as a show of force and power.
The life of Joseph Smith from 1839 to 1844 had thus undergone a radical shift in energy. This post-1839 Joseph Smith is a hybrid figure in my view, and his religious mythology is a hybrid as a cross between Protestantism and Viking-like Indo-European mythology (for the Vikings themselves took wives and concubines and the Norse Gods valued power over puritanism); which is why I think the Friberg paintings published in the Book of Mormon in the 1980s, were paintings where the Nephites were depicted looking like Viking warriors. Thus, I see Nauvoo era Mormonism as a gateway mythology, a transmutation of the instinctual energies of the body into a new religious mythology that by 1839 aligned more with the vitality of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Viking mythology: as a more pro-body, sex positive, mythos of power acquisition and an elevation of the instincts to the very nature of the Gods themselves as again seen in Orson Hyde's Kingdom of God diagram.
So on the spectrum of extremes between purity and piety on one end and savagery and ruthlessness on the other, I see Joseph Smith's Nauvoo era Mormonism somewhere in the middle as a gateway toward a Middle Way. One end of a spectrum between two extremes of celibate Catholic priests and the polygamist Mormon. In other words, I do not see either extreme as the ideal or the morally recommended lifestyle. But between these extremes, I see a "middle way" where the body is not repressed and the instincts denied but nor is cruelty and the oppression of women the rule of religious law either.
My Overall Thesis is that Mormonism is a Gateway to Renaissance Enlightenment Humanism & Christio-Indo-European-mythos: How Joseph Smith evolved from Pragmatic Christian Universalist to Hermetic Renaissance Humanist -- which can act as a Model for one’s own Spiritual Growth from Augustinian Dualism toward Enlightened Renaissance Humanism:
“Renaissance Enlightenment Humanism” refers to a philosophical movement that emerged during the Renaissance period, emphasizing the value of human potential, reason, and the study of classical Greek and Roman texts, which continued to influence thought during the Age of Enlightenment, where ideas about human agency and rational inquiry were further developed and applied to various fields like science and politics; essentially, it marked a shift in focus from solely religious doctrine to a more human-centered approach to understanding the world.
Key points about Renaissance Humanism:
Focus on Classical Studies:
Humanists heavily studied ancient Greek and Roman literature, philosophy, and art, believing they held the key to achieving a well-rounded life and understanding human nature.
"Studia Humanitatis":
This term refers to the core subjects studied by humanists, including grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and ethics.
Individual Potential:
Humanists emphasized the importance of individual development and the ability of humans to achieve great things through education and self-improvement.
"Renaissance Man":
The ideal of the "Renaissance Man" embodied the humanist belief in cultivating diverse skills and knowledge across various disciplines.
How it connects to the Enlightenment:
Shared Values:
Both movements placed high value on reason, critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge as a means to improve society.
Scientific Inquiry:
The Renaissance's renewed interest in classical texts paved the way for scientific advancements during the Enlightenment, where scientific investigation became a central focus.
Social Reform:
Humanist ideas about individual rights and human dignity contributed to Enlightenment thinkers advocating for social and political reform
Orson Hyde taught Joseph Smith grammar and and this began a further pursuit of knowledge in the School of the Prophets. Where the early LDS leaders basically studied indirectly Renaissance Enlightenment Humanism and biblical scholarship. They studied history and science and studied the Hebrew language which led to Joseph Smith moving from monotheism to polytheism after 1839 (see D&C 121:28).
According to historian Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith began as a true believer, a pious convert to Evangelical Christianity. But he quickly modified his beliefs during the composition of the Book of Mormon as he was basically a pragmatic Christian Universalist. We can see how Joseph justified his religious myth-making for the greater good, where in D&C 19, he claims that the use of Protestant Hell language in the Book of Mormon was used to basically scare people; but that such language was only metaphorical and was not to be taken literally. The section further encourages Martin Harris to basically keep this view private so that the Hell language in the book can go on to motivate the Protestant readers of the Book of Mormon.
I think it is clear and obvious that after Joseph became a Universalist and kept that a secret for awhile, Joseph Smith then secretly became a Renaissance Humanist and Pantheistic Polytheist by 1839. Here is a bullet point summary of just a few pieces of evidence of this from 1835 to 1844:
- Smith tells Nancy Rigdon that God is more "liberal in his views," and teaches a form of moral relativism by arguing that whatever God declares is right is right and how God at one point said to utterly destroy after previously saying don't kill. Thus, he explains to Nancy that his new plural marriage doctrine is true as revelation, even though it goes against her puritanical Protestant sensibilities as found in Joseph's earlier revelations like the Book of Mormon.
- Smith stopped preaching from and quoting from the Book of Mormon. I interpret this as he moved beyond its monotheistic Trinitarian Protestant theology; but he still saw it as a "correct book" as a proselyting tool and a form of proof of his seership abilities as prophet and seer.
- His conversion to Freemasonry solidified his Hermetic Deism and/or Pantheistic Polytheism.
- His move from Dualism to Monism (i.e. spirit-matter)
- Joseph's move from the Book of Mormon teachings on Protestant “saved by grace" and finding static "rest in the Lord” to a hermetic gnosis (i.e. being saved by knowledge and intelligence) and ascending exaltation to exaltation in imitation of the kingly Gods.
- Smith removed fear of demon possession by positing you can shake hands with good angels; and used the fear of demons to push Mormons to embrace Abrahamic Expansionism via learning that God the Father has a body in the temple through giving secret hand claspes.
- Smith utilizes Peter's keys of binding, which he saw as a loophole for getting clever and binding/sealing friends and lovers (as wives and concubines) in order gain a celestial kingdom; and thus earn high status enthronement exaltation to exaltation. For example, he told his scribe Clayton that if Clayton's plural wives are frowned upon by LDS members, he will excommunite him and just rebaptize him soon after.
We can see that Joseph moved beyond Augustinian dualistic apocalypticism and toward nondualistic/monist spiritual naturalism. Of course, he could not fully reject all of Augustinian dualism, as the Book of Mormon used such dualistic language, but it is clear that he has abandoned the Augustinian puritanism in the Book of Mormon; even contradicting the Book of Mormon with D&C 132 wherein he justified King David and Solomon in practicing polygamy. Joseph Smith even removes the words attributed to Jesus about plucking out your eye in the JST. We see further evidence of this move away from puritanism and toward pro-body Enlightenment Humanism, when apostle Parley P. Pratt writes an essay, Intelligence and Affection in the 1840s: which rejects the Book of Mormon's conceptual language of "carnal, sensual, and devilish," as basically Protestant superstition. Orson Pratt then writes Absurdities of Immaterialism which rejects immaterial spirits and is referenced in the 1891 D&C. As the Protestant view of dualistic matterless spirits is replaced with pantheistic spirit-atoms and one Great God, which acts like the Force in Star Wars. For more details, see my blog series on the original Mormon Godhead here.
So I see Mormonism as actually a case study in the process of one man's renaissance-enlightenment through Joseph Smith’s spiritual development away from dualistic Augustinianism and toward Renaissance Enlightenment Humanism. Thus to read Mormon scripture as a whole, as an emerging evolutionary development, is to move from dualistic Protestant theism toward monist/pantheistic polytheism: which aligns more with the God of the ancient philosophers, of the Greeks (i.e. Stoics), Norse mythos, and ancient Hebrews, etc., prior to the effect of Zoroastrianism on Judaism.
Joseph Smith held his pro-body polytheism and monist/pantheist-ish views private for the most part, in fear of losing his prophetic status. After all, it was believed that he was channeling the voice of Jesus. But by 1844, he "let the cat out of the bag" with his King Follett Discourse.
An Emerging Theology
The Emergent Mormon Perspective sees Mormonism as an emergent phenomenon growing from the Kirkland-Missouri phase (or the Smith-Rigdon phase) to the Smith-Pratt phase in Nauvoo when Joseph Smith began to fully embrace Renaissance Enlightenment Humanism. Thus we see an emerging development in the theology and interpretations of LDS Scripture as covered in books like “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology by Charles R. Harrell and Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine by Gary James Bergera. For more details see my blog post here.
The Emergent Evolution of Christianity from the Markan Community to the Johannine Community
After I had resigned my membership in the Brighamite church around 2004, and after then becoming a skeptic, I then reconstructed a non-fundamentalist philosophical Christian position after being influenced by the writings of Marcus Borg and John Spong. In particular, Spong's books:
- Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism
- Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy
- The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic.
John's Gospel is marked by a complete absence of demons. This is not due to John reflecting a more secular worldview than the Synoptics. ... Through Jesus' death on the cross, the devil has been exorcised from the whole world.
Since I do not believe in a literal "Satan character" or demons, after studying the origin of the devil character, John's demonless gospel began to appeal to my rational sensibilities.
Instead of fear mongering through apocalyptic language, John's Gospel also presents eternal life as more of a present moment experience of having Divine Life in abundance here and now. This appealed to my new found practice of mindfulness meditation (or present moment awareness in the Now).
Christian scholar Elaine Pagels discusses the theological message of the Gospel of Thomas and how it's basically describing a divine light as the Source of the Universe and that Jesus is a conduit of this Divine Light; and that you yourself are a spark of this Divine Light and if you get in touch with that inner divine light, you can become enlightened; and so you don't need a church or pastor, and there's no "Second Coming" because the Divine Realm is inside you and all around you; and so she says you can pretty much be a spiritual freelancer with the Gospel of Thomas. She also discusses the similarity in spirituality between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas. Finally, she ties this all together in her scholarship by pointing out that Paul spoke about secret mysteries, which ties into the Gospel of Mark speaking of secret mysteries and the concept of a secret gospel that Paul did not write about publicly; and that the secret gospel is experienced in visionary states, which she compares to Kabbalah in Judaism, which has connections to early Mormonism. This led me to wonder if that secret gospel is the ability to ascend into the throne room of God, transcending all ecclesiastical leadership. See my blog post on the Book of Mormon as an ascension text. So I realized there is a version of Mormonism where you can treat it like a "freelance spirituality," as Dr. Pagels puts it, just like a Christian treating the Gospel of Thomas as a legitimate gospel and abiding by its mystical message.
This led to my forming a Christian stance which is a more about inner enlightenment or a mystic version of Christianity, after realizing the three texts below had a similar message:
- Gospel of John: No Exorcisms; Eternal Life is here and now, "life in abundance" per John 10:10.
- Gospel of Thomas: Saying 3, "Jesus said, 'If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' ... Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known...." and 77, "Split a piece of wood: I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there."
- Book of Mormon: Ascension text; 2 Nephi 9:41, "and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; ..." Note that D&C 88 and the original LDS doctrine of The Lectures on Faith describe a process of enlightenment where a diffused fluid substance as light and intelligence fills individuals so that they are glorified (glow in splendor) just as Jesus smiles and shines on his disciples in 3 Nephi. As Joseph Smith himself, said, "This first comforter, or Holy Ghost, has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is …powerful in expanding the mind [and] enlightening the understanding."
This new understanding, that the holy books above differed with the synoptic gospels, and that each gospel was a distinct and different version of Christianity in many ways, released me from feeling the dire need for a systematic theology and instead being a possiblilian on such matters.
My differentiating between the Johannine Gospel and the synoptic Gospels was further augmented by my appreciation of Nietzsche's dionysian philosophy and learning about how the Johannine Community may have or even likely based their gospel in part off of the dionysian mythos (see the book The Dionysian Gospel); which is why in the Gospel of John for example, Jesus is presented more as a festive Party God turning water into wine, to basically keep the party going. In fact, according to biblical scholars, the clay jars were meant to represent religious jars of ceremonial water; so Jesus turning purity jars of water into party wine symbolized an affirmation of song and dance and sexual relations in marriage over being a life long celibate and practicing only stifling purity rituals. Thus the water into wine was basically representing a "holier than thou" type attitude in contrast to a playful and joyful attitude. So the episode is all about a celebration of life. Similar to how the god dionysus represented passion-filled Life. So the Johannine Jesus is clearly a different Jesus from the Pauline Jesus who was primarily an exorcist encouraging celibacy if one was able in the context of apocalyptic end times (see 1 Corinthians 7; Mathew 19:12).
This philosophical worldview-move toward considering myself open to the Johannine perspective (over and above the synoptics), led me to further realize that Joseph Smith was simply expanding this ongoing Christian tradition of midrashic modification and expansion of earlier religious texts into new ones. For, Joseph Smith could be seen doing the same thing with his own updated version with a more "Abrahamic gospel." I began to see that just as the Gospel of John can be seen as making corrections and changes or even improvements upon the earlier Synoptic Gospels, Joseph Smith's "fifth gospel" so to speak, could be seen as a midrashic attempt to move Christianity further forward toward a more science-based, body-affirming, naturalistic worldview.
A picture is worth a thousand words, so I put together this visual to present how I see Mormonism emerging over time toward a more dionysian and/or Abrahamic theo-philosophy:
Next, in the image above I depict the image that Joseph Smith chose to depict God the Father, which is an image from the pagan Egyptian scrolls of a phallic deity representing sexual potency and fecundity.
Finally, I depicted Orson Hyde’s diagram of God’s Kingdom. This is a more dionysian kingdom of growth and becoming, via Abrahamic expansionism just as Life itself evolves through ascending hierarchical growth and expansion. As Abraham 3: 16 puts it, “If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; …” Thus the Mormon restored gospel emerged out of being a more Apollonian structure with only an emphasis on “resting in the Lord” -- in a static Protestant heaven, and a focus only on utopian leveling -- and overtime moved more toward a dionysian becoming and a form of will to power.
In other words, Hyde's diagram signifies an ever increasing merit-based hierarchical expansion in manly enthronement as a form of will to power: rising upward in rank, growing in power and dominion dynastically: a compounding of power, kingdom upon kingdom, expanding the lineage of kings with an increase in acquired wealth, strength, status, friendships and relationships; as represented in each pronged section pointed upwards toward the crown. For more details on Orson Hyde’s diagram see here. So just as life itself is organic beings ordered by rank in hierarchies, the affirmation of hierarchy in later Nauvoo Era Mormonism, was the affirmation of life itself.
Understanding the Evolution of Ideas
Marcus Borg's book Evolution of the Word: A Chronological Look at the New Testament, is the popular NRSV translation but puts each New Testament document in chronological order. This helped me see a clear evolutionary development within the Christian communities, culminating in the emergence of the Gospel of John. This allowed me better appreciate a similar chronological evolution in Mormonism, from the early 1830s to the 1840s; for, Joseph Smith, as a midrashic artist himself, clearly evolved from a more Protestant mindset pre-1835, to a more Abrahamic Life-affirming mindset post-1835. Thus the title for this blog, the Emergent Mormon Perspective.
The Emergent Mormon Perspective embraces and applauds this evolution and sees Joseph Smith maturing overtime as a writer, thinker, and creative artist; with his Nauvoo Era Mormonism being the pinnacle of his more fully emerged and matured philosophical development: wherein he fully moved toward synthesizing science and biblical spirituality and affirming life in the body.
Original Nauvoo era Mormonism as a Gateway to Greco-Nordic-Stoic Spirituality
The Lectures on Faith are very similar to Stoic theology. The Book of Abraham is basically polytheistic, thus its kind of a return to the Greco Nordic pantheons through the polytheistic Pantheon of the original Hebrew theology: which was based on the Canaanite Pantheon. Thus, Mormonism is a return to the original polytheistic pantheon archetypes of father and mother gods that procreate offspring, which mythologically affirms organic life on earth in the flesh. Hence Mormonism is the restoration in many ways of the ancient polytheistic pantheon and acts as a quasi Greco Nordic Stoic spirituality.
I am Mormon Friendly & Appreciative of my Mormon Heritage I consider myself a Appreciator-of-Mormonism as of 2024, in that I appreciate my Mormon heritage and 1840s LDS philosophy, like the emphasis on an affirmation of bodily life with it's philosophical monism, rather than Augustinian duality. I appreciate its synthesis of Swedenborgian conjugal relationships in the eternities through the modified version of it via plural marriage, which evolved into eternal monogamous marriages post 1900. I appreciate this return to the body and sensual love, which has some similarities with Nietzsche's philosophy.
In other words, I appreciate my Mormon ancestors and the theo-philosophy I inherited because it made me better able to appreciate my Scandinavian Viking ancestors and their polytheism. For if I had remained a monotheistic Catholic or Protestant, I might have been more phobic of polytheism and would not appreciate the original polytheism of ancient Judaism and my polytheistic Norse ancestors. I wouldn't have found value in Dr. Paul Dobransky's use of the Greek gods as a psychological model for personal development through integrating the masculine or feminine instincts into one's personal psychology. Thus I am appreciative of Mormon in that while I see it as mythology, I see it as a stepping stone or gateway theology to what I describe as solar-pantheonism.
Once you end up deconstructing your Mormon faith which is highly likely to happen in the internet age, knowing that mythologies are human constructs, you are given the freedom to construct your own spirituality and mythology; that can be even more beneficial and empowering to the psyche than Brighamite Mormonism. In other words, Mormonism broke away from Augustinian dogma's that despise the body and instead affirmed the body, but it also came with other high demand religious cultism. But knowing the power of creativity and seeing Joseph Smith as a creative explorer can act as a model for one's own exploration beyond Moromonism.
The Pre-1900 Mormon Philosophy & Post-1900 LDS Philosophy
There is a huge difference between the pre-1900 church and the post-1900 church which I discuss throughout this blog. There is a huge difference between appreciating the "Mormon philosophy" of the 1840s and belonging to the LDS Church of today. In other words, much of what I appreciate about original Mormonism is no longer what the LDS Church is today. In fact today's LDS Church has become more protestantized and has lost much of the original 1840s (pre-1900) philosophical ideas I appreciate most.
I do believe that Mormonism is in many ways an improvement philosophically on Catholicism and Protestantism. I write a lot on this blog about appreciating your Mormon heritage and ancestors. In other words, I think my pre-1900 Mormon ancestors were overall noble people and there was a reason they joined Mormonism and left their Protestant churches. The Protestant churches were teaching the Trinity (three in one) nonsense and harmful ideas like everyone and their grandmother is going to go to hell. So Mormonism was an improvement on those ideas.
The Mormonism that my Mormon ancestors grew up in however is not the more controlling protestantized Mormon Church of today. For example, my ancestors could drink coffee and tithing was more liberal and there was no so-called "worthiness" interviews; and there were no church leaders saying silly things like if you say the word "Mormon" you're going to make Satan win. All that are inventions by the current post-1900 Mormon Church leadership.
So I still appreciate and value old school pre-1900 Mormonism and it's Philosophy of Life, which was in many ways better than the alternatives of Catholicism or Protestantism. But I do not consider myself Mormon anymore, not even a cultural or philosophical Mormon, because I do not want to play the role of a Saint. But again, if someone does want to be a Saint, then what I provide on this blog is a way to privately in one's head return to the more empowering philosophy of pre-1900 Mormonism while socially fitting into the current LDS system.
If "Indo-European-mythology" is at its Core Pro-Body, is 1840s Era Mormonism a Christio-Indo-European?
This is a controversial perspective, but one way to be a New Order Mormon or nuanced LDS believer, or simply appreciate Mormonism as an outsider, is to appreciate the "Indo-European spirituality" within 1840s Mormonism.
I think that Joseph Smith himself was attempting to move away from Augustinian Protestant ideas of sainthood by the 1840s; as he invented a lot of ideas in the 1840s which were more, quite frankly, Indo-European. Thus I actually see Joseph Smith, by 1840, moving away from sainthood and more toward a type of Christo-Indo-European spirituality.
According to the December 2024 Wikipedia article on Paganism, we learn that:
Paganism (from classical Latin pāgānus "rural", "rustic", later "civilian") is a term first used in the fourth century by early Christians for people in the Roman Empire who practiced polytheism,[1] or ethnic religions other than Judaism. In the time of the Roman Empire, individuals fell into the pagan class either because they were increasingly rural and provincial relative to the Christian population, or because they were not milites Christi (soldiers of Christ).[2][3] Alternative terms used in Christian texts were hellene, gentile, and heathen.[1] Ritual sacrifice was an integral part of ancient Greco-Roman religion[4] and was regarded as an indication of whether a person was pagan or Christian.[4] Paganism has broadly connoted the "religion of the peasantry".[1][5]
During and after the Middle Ages, the term paganism was applied to any non-Christian religion, and the term presumed a belief in "false gods".[6][7] The origin of the application of the term "pagan" to polytheism is debated.[8] In the 19th century, paganism was adopted as a self-descriptor by members of various artistic groups inspired by the ancient world. In the 20th century, it came to be applied as a self-descriptor by practitioners of modern paganism, modern pagan movements and Polytheistic reconstructionists. Modern pagan traditions often incorporate beliefs or practices, such as nature worship, that are different from those of the largest world religions.[9][10] ...
The term pagan derives from Late Latin paganus, revived during the Renaissance. Itself deriving from classical Latin pagus which originally meant 'region delimited by markers', paganus had also come to mean 'of or relating to the countryside', 'country dweller', 'villager'; by extension, 'rustic', 'unlearned', 'yokel', 'bumpkin'; in Roman military jargon, 'non-combatant', 'civilian', 'unskilled soldier'. It is related to pangere ('to fasten', 'to fix or affix') and ultimately comes from Proto-Indo-European *pag- ('to fix' in the same sense):[14]
The adoption of paganus by the Latin Christians as an all-embracing, pejorative term for polytheists represents an unforeseen and singularly long-lasting victory, within a religious group, of a word of Latin slang originally devoid of religious meaning. The evolution occurred only in the Latin west, and in connection with the Latin church. Elsewhere, Hellene or gentile (ethnikos) remained the word for pagan; and paganos continued as a purely secular term, with overtones of the inferior and the commonplace.
— Peter Brown, Late Antiquity, 1999[15]
So we see here that "paganism" is defined in part as basically some form of polytheism and nature worship. So the way I see it, the main distinguishing differences between "traditional (Nicene) Christianity" and Paganism, is that the former is monotheist and the latter is polytheistic. The other area of difference between traditional Christianity and paganism, is that one is basically overall anti-Nature and the other is more pro-Nature, which I discuss in my blog post here. But again, the word Pagan also brings to mind modern movements like Wicca and Heathenry. Therefore, it is wrong to call Mormonism merely "pagan." Yet in some ways it is pagan, but so is most of Christianity. For example, Christian authors Frank Viola and George Barna wrote the book Pagan Christianity that covered the many pagan ideas and practices in modern Christianity. Modern Christianity was also changed after coming into contact with the Germanic Indo-Europeans, which is extensively covered in the scholarly book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation by James C. Russell. Therefore, today's Christianity itself can be called a Christo-pagan religion. So what I will argue is that Mormonism was just a further extension of this trend. But I will seek to avoid the word pagan and instead use the better term Indo-European.
I first realized that Mormonism is a kind of "Christo-Indo-Europeanism" after watching the video "Christo-paganism: A Controversial Idea" by The Ark Channel on YouTube. This video explains the pagan developments in modern Christianity. This video does a good job of explaining what I see in original pre-1900 Mormonism, which is a Christo-paganism, and by paganism I only mean to imply positive connotations.
As mentioned above, before the Christian reader says to themselves with an accusatory tone, "See, I knew Mormonism was pagan!" Let’s step back a bit and realize that Germanic pagans (Indo-Europeans) heavily influenced today's version of Christianity.
According to the Wikipedia article on the Christianization of Scandinavia, Scandinavian were slow to convert to Christianity and leave behind their Gods like Thor and Odin. One of the ways Christian missionaries were able to convert those who descended from the warrior tribes of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and ancient Germania, was by focusing on the image of Christ as not a peaceful, pacifistic suffering martyr (as portrayed in the Gospels, especially in Mark), but by instead emphasizing the New Testament's book Revelation: wherein the author of that text interprets Christ as more of a vengeful Conquering Messiah at war with Satan who is basically personified as Rome.
I see Christianity today as a stabilizing and civilizing force in the modern world. And what is interesting is that the modern version of Christianity (let's call it Cultural-Christianity) that we experience today, is actually not based on the earliest writings of the New Testament (which emphasizes/encourages the ideal of celibacy, pacifism, and voluntary martyrdom). Instead, Cultural-Christianity rejects pacifism, celibacy and voluntary martyrdom (as practiced in the New Testament), and instead supports having a family, wealth, retirement, and self-defense and even going to war. This evolution from Anti-Familial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity to today's modern Cultural-Christianity, that is more pro-family and a pro-self-defense, is in large part a result of Germanic Indo-Europeans integrating into Christianity (beginning around 400 AD): which helped radically modify first century Ancient-Christianity and change it from a world-denying religion into a more life-affirming religion today (with most Christians focusing on building a prosperous future here and now on earth). This transformation is covered in the book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation by James C. Russell. What you realize reading Russell's book is that modern Cultural-Christianity is really not New Testament Christianity (which again emphasizes/encourages anti-familial ideas like the ideal of celibacy, as well as pacifism and voluntary martyrdom), as today's Cultural-Christianity is really a Germanized version of Christianity. In other words, Germanic Indo-Europeans are in part responsible for this modification into today's Cultural-Christianity and the world-affirming beliefs and attitudes of most Christians today!
Mormonism & Norse Indo-European-ism
Not only has modern Cultural-Christianity undergone a germanization theological process, I have also realized that Mormonism is a further germanization of Christianity. In fact, one could call early 1840s era Mormonism a Christian-Indo-European-ism or Norse-like version of Christianity. In other words, Mormonism changed from a more Nicene-Christian Protestant Church (prior to 1835) to a more Norse-adjacent Christio-Indo-European mythos after 1835. For example, prior to 1839, official LDS doctrine was monotheistic, Trinitarian, and God the Father was a non-earthly personage of spirit without a wife (see the original monotheist doctrine of LDS Lectures on Faith).
After 1839, Joseph taught there is not one single Deity (or Monotheist-Trinity) as most Christians believe, but instead he taught a Pantheon of Gods, similar to the ancient Germanic Indo-Europeans; but Joseph Smith did not directly use Indo-European mythology as source material. Instead, he was inspired by Egyptian pagan imagery (which he published in the Book of Abraham), as well as the original polytheistic-henotheism of the ancient Israelites/Jews (which he learned about when learning the Hebrew language in the mid 1830s). After this, post-1836, Joseph Smith's theology and scriptures begin to move away from the bodiless Father God of the Nicene Creed, and Joseph Smith instead says in the 1840s that God the Father has an earthly body and a wife; which is similar to the Egyptian Gods, ancient Judaism (when Father-Jehovah of the ancient Old Testament had a body and a wife or consort), as well as the Norse God Odin and his wife Frigg (Queen of Asgard, the home of the Norse Gods).
Joseph Smith wrote a private letter to Nancy Rigdon in the 1840s where he says “God is more liberal in his views,” basically saying God was not a puritanical Protestant. I would argue that Joseph Smith moved to a more Norse-like mythology in the 1840s. I see a lot of parallels and similarities with 1840s Nauvoo era Mormonism and Germanic Indo-European mythology, in particular the life-affirming aspects.
The Modern LDS Church (or Brighamite Sect) of Today
Unfortunately, today’s modern Mormon Church has moved away from this Norse-like energy and has moved back to the more puritanical and Protestant version of the LDS Church (which developed prior to 1839). So whenever I speak positively of Mormonism, note that I am not supporting or advocating the more puritanical high demand religiosity of today’s LDS Church, but I am speaking positively about the more Norse-like energy that developed in 1840s Nauvoo era Mormonism.
So I would say that Joseph Smith's 1840s Mormonism was much more like the religion of my Norse ancestors in many ways. This is why Catholics and Protestants do not consider Mormonism "christian." In other words, I think Joseph Smith was becoming more "Greco-Norse"/Indo-European adjacent" in many ways the last years of his life.
Before the year 1836 however, Smith was still basically a monotheistic Protestant in his mindset and most of the Mormon scriptures he produced (prior to 1840) taught typical monotheism and Protestant Saintliness. Smith began to move toward building a scriptural foundation for a more pro-Nature theology in the last few years of his life, and then he was assassinated. So that what remains is that the majority of the scriptures he produced contains basically monotheistic Protestant dogma. This is why you have non- Brighamite Mormon sects in Missouri and elsewhere, where they stick to all of the Mormon scriptures composed prior to 1836. Thus these other Mormon sects fit into the category of basically being Monotheistic Protestants, believing in the Nicene Creed of traditional Christianity. This is because the main body of Mormon scripture Smith produced prior to 1840, contained mostly typical Protestant theology.
Life-Affirming Pre-1900 Mormon Indo-Europeans Spirituality vs. The Post-1900 Protestanized LDS Church (Brighamite Sect)
Joseph Smith's more pro-nature theology, which he developed in the 1840s, is actually what I think makes Mormonism more appealing, at least to me. For without the more pro-nature innovations, Mormonism is not much more different than the anti-nature Catholic and Protestant churches. In other words, without its Christo-Indo-Europeanism, it is just another anti-nature, puritanical sect, like in most of Protestantism.
So when Joseph Smith moved closer to the pro-earthly Indo-European mythos of my Indo-European and Norse ancestors, that is the part of Mormonism I actually like the most (that is the more pro-Nature, pro-body aspects). Unfortunately however, today's Mormon Church began to pretty much downplay, ignore, or abandon those more pro-nature aspects after the year 1900; and have returned more and more to the Pious-Protestant version of Mormonism that developed pre-1840, which I find less appealing.
So as of right now (as of 2024), I'm not a practicing Mormon and do not intend to ever try to be practicing Mormon because it has moved in a more "Protestantized," anti-Nature, and puritanical direction post-1900. However, I still appreciate the more Indo-European mythos that developed in the 1840s Nauvoo era of Mormonism; and in this blog series I will be posting more about this.
Note that even though being an LDS member doesn't work for me personally, this perspective might be useful to anyone else trying to stay LDS.
