But it is the same with man as with the tree. The more he seeketh to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthward, downward, into the dark and deep — into the evil.
~ Nietzsche
I believe I may interpret the Latin bonus [meaning good] as "the warrior": assuing that I am correct in tracing bonus back to an older duonus (compare bellum = duellum = duen-lum, in which that duonus seems to me to be preserved). Bonus accordingly as man of strife, of division (duo), as man of war--one sees what it was about a man that constituted his "goodness" in ancient Rome. (translation by Clark and Swensen)
~ Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, §5
For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
~ Joseph Smith, author and proprieter of the Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:16
It has been stated that this word [mormon] was derived from the Greek word mormo. This is not the case. ... [The] Bible in its widest sense, means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John, "I am the good shepherd;" and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word MOR-MON; which means, literally, more good.
~ Joseph Smith (Source).
“... if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’”
~ Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg.s 299–300.
There was a time when I as an exmormon and was seeking to fill the existential void and loss of a sense of meaning and identity (formerly provided by Mormonism). I tried other forms of Christianity and secular forms of Buddhism but nothing felt right nor fulfilling. Eventually I became an agnostic-atheist but such rational-reductionism lacked the ability to fulfill my "spiritual" needs I still had despite my critical thinking and innate skepticism.
I then discovered Nietzsche and for a time I found the spiritual and mystical elements of his philosophy attractive. Many books summarizing his philosophy presented his philosophy in a very positive way; and for a time I felt that his work could act as a new spiritual replacement to my former LDS beliefs. I especially liked his poetic style, endorsement of humor, and his sensitivity to the importance of emotion, instinct, and mythos; which was lacking in the other more Vulcan forms of atheism I encountered.
However this allurement to Nietzscheanism was short lived. After reading books summarizing Nietzsche's philosophy in a positive way, I then read other authors offering a more objective view of his philosophy. Finally, it was my actually reading Nietzsche's writing for myself that I began to realize that I am in fact a Christian. What I think actually reading Nietzsche does for some atheists is that he helps the atheist see just what an "honest atheism" would look like, and it ain't pretty; and so some atheists like Tom Holland come away from reading Nietzsche realizing they are ethically Christian more than they realized (that is what happened to me and many others I have heard of).
Nietzsche lambasts the atheists of his day as basically practicing a Christianity Light (think Bud Light), as in they practice a watered down Christian ethic thzt lacks the non-supernatural grounding but retains the shadow of theism. For Nietzsche, if "God is Dead" (that is we killed God through modern rational science) then notions of objective Truth and Good & Evil are not real. As he puts it through the voice of his character Zarathustra:
"Nothing is true, all is permitted": so said I to myself. Into the coldest water did I plunge with head and heart. Ah, how oft did I stand there naked on that account, like a red crab!
Ah, where have gone all my goodness and all my shame and all my belief in the good! Ah, where is the lying innocence which I once possessed, the innocence of the good and of their noble lies!
Too oft, verily, did I follow close to the heels of truth: then did it kick me on the face. Sometimes I meant to lie, and behold! then only did I hit— the truth.
~ Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, section The Shadow
“When the Christian crusaders in the Orient came across that invincible order of Assassins – that order of free spirits par excellence whose lowest order received, through some channel or other, a hint about that symbol and spell reserved for the uppermost echelons alone, as their secret: "nothing is true, everything is permitted". Now that was freedom of the spirit, with that, belief in truth itself was renounced.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
I began to see more clearly that Nietzsche encouraged a radical aristocracy: a post compassion pursuit of total freedom in alignment with evolving (red in tooth and claw) amoral Life itself. In the organic world of warring species with life forms eating life forms (in a war of all against all), there is no God and no Good and Evil, only the pursuit of territory, status, and dominion through cruelty. As Darwin once put it bluntly, "... There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." Regardless of whether you believe in God, one can't deny that life itself is cruel indeed. So in Nietzsche's view, to be radically pro-Life, the most egotistical and cruel specimens of higher men should overpower and evolutionarily surpass the lower class herd of weaker men. In fact it would be unjust if not to, as an injustice against Life.
Over the course of a few years I went from being a Nietzsche fan to a critic of Nietzsche. Mostly because he seemed to ignore the aspects in biology that favors the practice of compassion. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day and I still value and appreciate many parts of his philosophy. For example, during my absorption of Nietzsche's philosophy I have to admit it made me slightly more politically conservative, or at least appreciating that view more; his call for toughness and merited achievements in life's inevitable hierarchies and pro organic Life-growth rhetoric are really hard to counter from a strictly atheistic evolutionary point of view. He often really does seem to mirror Reality as it really is without a good God intervening. Since I was coming from the position of atheism, an exmormon-atheist could not disagree with Nietzsche on theistic grounds. So I began to realize that despite his arguments from healthy organic Life, I still felt deeply Christian and found value in Christianity as basically a philosophy against cruelty and unfairness. Something deep within me was appalled at Nietzsche's radical aristocracy and splitting men into cruel artist-tyrants who are evolving into a new species called the Superman, or one is just part of the useless herd, the rabble: who are worth nothing because they have no soul and have simply been polluted by Christianity.
Overtime I began to see many more flaws in Nietzscheanism. For example, on what it means to be a true alpha male. From a scientific perspective, I began to agree more with those humanist atheist writers who argued against Nietzscheanism and showed that we evolved to be compassionate and share resources for tribal flourishing. Atheist writers like Jonathan Haidt and Tom Holland, and the pragmatic Christian Jordan Peterson, led me to a greater appreciation of the Christian Ethos.
So I was led to criticize Nietzsche's core philosophy as I began to realize that I am a Christian ethically speaking; yet I can still appreciate Nietzsche's philosophy to some extent, for example he helped me realize that too much demanding for sameness and equality of outcome is ultimately a denying of Organic Life and its rank ordering which ends up being organically unhealthy. Jordan Peterson talks about this in 12 Rules for Life, by discussing our biological drives to climb the dominance hierarchy and how our status can affect our well-being.
Since then I've returned to examining my Mormon childhood and upbringing in Mormon culture and learning more about LDS philosophy. I began to see that the real Mormon history (with its origins of power within hiearchy) combined with Nietzsche's insights, that Joseph Smith in many ways bridges that gap between the Nietzschean pro-biologic-Life will to power and saying Yes to organic Life on one hand and yet valuing the cohesive mystical unifying power of Christianity on the other.
In many ways, I consider Joseph Smith in some ways one of those philosopher-kings Nietzsche champions, who repaints the horizon after its been wiped away (as Nietzsche's Madman laments). Nietzsche envisioned future philosopher kings and merit-based higher men who would deal with modern nihilism by creating new Life-affirming moralities and religions and cultures in order to produce a new superhuman species to replace the Christianized human species.
In many ways Joseph Smith accomplished half of Nietzsche's philosophical ideal of the artistic noble hero, in that Joseph (like Nietzsche) also overcame the problematic aspects of Augustinian and Lutheran Christianity (that both Nietzsche and Smith criticized); and yet Joseph Smith departed from Nietzsche by planting and maintaining the best aspects of the Christian Worldview. Joseph "watered the soil" of the healthy and positive aspects of Christianity. Furthermore, while Nietzsche left open the door for philosophies like postmodernism with its anti-Truth rhetoric, Joseph Smith instead bridged the gap between science and religion with Joseph Smith's pro-Truth stance: giving a firmer foundation for rationality and scientific empiricism which is practiced among Mormon scientists. Joseph presented a spiritual materialism/naturalism, thus bridging the Gap between rational physicalism and sensual spirituality.
Nietzsche envisioned a new god-like species which would be like the Greco-Roman gods. Similarly, Joseph Smith provided an upward movement away from degradation into mediocrity and instead toward optimistic upward progress in life and humans after death obtaining the state of deification and even becoming gods. Yet unlike Nietzsche, who argued for basically evolved superhumans who have become like capricious Greek gods, with no pity or compassion and eventually die and cease to exist; Joseph Smith preached manly valor and promoted Christian compassion; as well as Christian theosis (similar to The Easter Orothodox Church and the scholarship of Michael Heiser) combined with the human drive for power and expansion.
Quincy saw in Smith a "rugged power," but also a "kingly faculty which directs, as an intrinsic right ..."This corresponds with Nietzsche’s ideal man as a powerful self-rolling creator of values. Here are some examples of how Joseph Smith met the Nietzschean masculine standard in many ways, as Joseph was a:
> Creator of midrashic art in the form of an American Novel (The Book of Mormon) about Native Americans that parallels somewhat the genre of the Gospels
> Creator of revelations ("Thus saith the Lord"), paralleling the apostle Paul's revelations in his letters and Epistles
> City Mayor
> Military General
Nietzsche could only dream about what Joseph in fact did in reality. Having read both The Book of Mormon (and all Smith's literary productions) and Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (and most of Nietzsche's literary productions), in my opinion Smith is the superior cultural artistic creator. Especially when you factor in that Smith was only 24 when he finished the Book of Mormon and Nietzsche was older and more intellectually mature and had a higher academic education and training (which Joseph Smith lacked).> Presidential candidate (See General Joseph Smith's Views in 1844)
> City Planner/Builder:
(Source)
The problem with Nietzsche was that he gave a blank check to the Nazis. In contrast, Joseph Smith combined the best of Christianity with the best of the science of his day with the organic drive to thrive into one Life Philosophy called Mormonism. Nietzsche's philosophy was adopted and adapted by the Nazis. Smith's philosophy in contrast has produced some of the most ethical and happiest people in America with higher rates of overall well-being.
According to Abir Taha, Nietzsche's literary creations and Dionysian Paganism influenced the Nazis (with catastrophic results). Ignoring this, high tower intellectuals in universities and some philosophers have adapted Nietzsche's philosophy to fit their liberal views (when Nietzsche was not a liberal!); and he has been adapted to promote post-modernism: which has led to a devaluing of objective truth and rationality. In contrast, Joseph Smith's literary creativity balanced mysticism and rationality and he helped generate the ethical and productive Mormon people and culture: that has spanned several continents and established the state of Utah; and has given millions of people a religious language, identity and culture: that is grounded in unique moral stories and noble heroes within Mormon scripture, with symbols and rituals (comparable to the Jewish people). Meanwhile, Mormon culture has been a net good for society.
