Latter-day Free Agent

 Since there is the Church of the Latter-day Dude, I thought there mine as well be Latter-day Free Agents. 

Why I Unapologetically use the term "Mormon"

 The first reason I will continue to use the term Mormon is because Joseph Smith himself accepted the nickname Mormon and played around with the term and analyzed it through the study of languages: and said that when you do that you can say that Mormon simply means "more good."

This is the main reason why I will continue to use the word Mormon, because it represents what being an Emergent Mormon is all about, that is appreciating that Joseph Smith's theo-philosophy is more good.

Second, the term "Mormonism" is canonized in scripture in D&C 135: 7. Enough said.

Thirdly, the term Mormon distinguishes one's cultural heritage and personal philosophy as LDS from Catholicism and Protestantism. In a Midnight Mormons episode (for November 2021) they discussed changing their podcast name and removing the word Mormon. A commenter named Liberty LLama responded, "I think that calling yourself a Mormon really draws a line in the sand of where you stand, and what you believe. When we call ourselves Christians. The assumption is that we believe in an immaterial god, and a three in one god." That is exactly right. 

When someone says to me, "I'm a Christian." I really don't know what they mean. Are they an Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian? Are they Catholic? Are they an Episcopalian? So nowadays that term really does not clarify anything specific. The one thing that phrase "I'm a Christian" does mean to me is that they likely hold the view that God is this vaporous no-thing, there is no feminine Divine, no Heavenly Mother or female angels (only a single dad and celibate son and all male angels), and people are consigned to eternal torture for thoughtcrime. As that is what is usually entailed with the designation of Christian as I've encountered it. So saying "Mormon" avoids that with Joseph Smith rejecting an eternal hell with his Three Degrees of Glory and his other universalistic  theologies and rituals. It makes it clear where you stand philosophically and theologically. And yes it's true that Mormons do have a different Jesus than the sectarian creeds. There's even an academic book called The Mormon Jesus: A Biography by John G. Turner.

As I cover in this blog, Joseph Smith's "more good" theology moved away from the despising of the body found in puritanical sectarianism. To use the term Mormon not only calls to mind a character in The Book of Mormon (scripture other Christian sects don't have), and distinct LDS theologies different from the sectarian Creeds; but also calls to mind a Life Philosophy that embraces joy in the body and a sex positive attitude: that grew out of Joseph Smith's jovial nature and "people person," joyful,  personality; which comes through in his thinking and philosophizing; which is distinctly different from the personalities and thinking processes of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Introduction & Core Theory of The Emergent Mormon Perspective

Nietzsche once said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” I tend to agree with that sentiment. This is just one way or perspective and approach (or my way) that works for me and may not work for you. To each their own. In other words, I don't think that any way of "Mormoning" is the only right way. If someone is happy as a Utah-based LDS member, I support them in that. If an atheist is happy with that worldview then I support them. If someone is happy as a Buddhist, I say cool. If someone enjoys being a Protestant or Catholic and they like that Faith then I support them. I believe in doing whatever works for you and is not harmful to yourself nor those around you. I share my views only from a position of generosity or the bestowing virtue, i.e. the spirit of offering ideas that have been empowering to me which could be empowering to others.

In short summary, the Emergent Mormon Perspective is a way of interpreting Mormonism more as a philosophy through an evolutionary lens of seeing Mormonism develop and evolve incrementally over time from 1829 to 1844 (as seen through Joseph Smith's sermons and scriptural productions); note that even some traditional LDS scholars agree with this to a degree, for example see Precept Upon Precept: Joseph Smith and the Restoration of Doctrine by Robert L. Millet.

The Emergent View is a way of thus seeing how Joseph Smith himself changed his mind over time, as covered comprehensively by retired BYU Professor Charles R. Harrell in his book This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology. Wherein we can see that it is clear from the evidence that as Joseph Smith learned new things and grew in experience, his theological philosophy began to further emerge out of (or away from) the cultural soil of Platonism, Augustinianism, and Protestantism and he instead grew up towards a more naturalistic (pro-material) body-affirming theological philosophy: which I cover in greater detail in my thesis document linked here: which covers Joseph Smith's emerging advancement toward a positive theology of the Body.

Note that senior research fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Terryl Givens, has presented his own take on how Joseph Smith broke away from Protestant ideas that slipped into his production of the Book of Mormon. Note that Givens books are sold at LDS Deseret bookstores. Givens basically thinks that Mormons need to learn to be more sophisticated in being able to sift out the Protestant ideas in the Book of Mormon by reinterpreting Protestant sounding verses in light of Joseph Smith's later theological innovations in the 1840s. For example, see Givens comments here from a September 2020 U.K. LDS Fireside.

The Emergent paradigm thus sees everything in Mormonism emerging or developing over time through the creative mind and life of Joseph Smith, from 1829 to 1844; with 1840s Nauvoo Era Mormonism being the pinnacle "high point" of development toward a more humanistic life-affirming Theology of the Body; with all the ideas and theological positions that Joseph Smith came to by 1844 being the standard ideal high point within the Emergent Mormon paradigm: wherein all previous ideas and scriptures are to be reinterpreted to fit the finalized pro-body philosophy and humanistic ideas of the 1840s. That is in short the Emergent Mormon Perspective.

The Emergent Mormon Perspective is not an endorsement or apologetic defense of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Brighamite sect or Utah-based LDS Church). If one is looking for an apologetic defense of the Utah-based LDS Church and it's official doctrines there are other sites for that. This is not the site for you. This is also not an "anti-Mormonism" site either and if that is what one is looking for there are other sites for that as well.

My Intended Reader:

In composing this website I had in mind a specific type of reader of this blog. My intended audience is anyone who is, or has been, an LDS member (a "Mormon"), but who has experienced a so-called "faith crisis" after deciding to dig deeper into Mormon history and LDS truth claims. Perhaps they ran across the CES Letter or the LDS Church's own Gospel Topic Essays covering controversial issues. They have gone through the "dark night of the soul" as it's called, after deconstructing their traditional LDS testimony. For example, they no longer believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (i.e. they don't believe it's certain that the Book of Mormon is a literal history of Native Americans), or that the Book of Abraham (in the Pearl of Great Price) is a literal history of Abraham in Egypt; and they are aware that the First Vision likely went through stages of development and probably did not occur as the LDS Church claims it did in most of it's published materials. Beyond that they have continued to deconstruct nearly all religious claims in general, even perhaps moving more toward atheism or agnosticism. Yet my ideal reader is however also someone who does not want to stay stuck in deconstruction mode and on a path that so often leads to depressing nihilism (as ex-mormon Brittney Hartley has opened up about) and a depressive nihilistic life attitude that Bill Reel expressed to Jacob Hanson in 2023 in these podcast episodes 381-382 here). Instead, my ideal reader has either started to, or plans to (or is in the process of) reconstructing a new meaning-making Christian life-stance from a more "theologically liberal" Christian Perspective; similarly, they plan to (or are trying to) find a way to appreciate LDS theology from a more “historical-metaphorical” way of reading Scripture (like Marcus Borg); and by doing so not "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and stay connected to the baseline Mormon philosophy on their own terms. 

This site is also intended for the post-deconstruction phase of the former-Mormon who does not intend to ever attend the LDS Church again; but who wants to find a way to not just be angry at Mormonism, and instead learn to appreciate their Mormon heritage and ancestry (if they descend from Mormon Pioneers like I do), or just want to see if there is a way to appreciate and value the philosophy of Mormonism from a non-orthodox point of view.

Note that, when interviewed by Carah Burrel on March 19, 2024, a Mormon defender named Kwaku El gives a similar position on distinguishing between the "philosophy of Mormonism" and the various Latter Day Saint denominations and sects and their differing doctrines.

The person I did not expect to read this website when composing it, was the happily content True Believing Mormon: who is happy bearing a traditional orthodox LDS testimony and always obeying the Brethren: those who have never had a so-called "faith crisis" and they have a metaphorical shelf in their head where they place any questions or doubts there, and have no interest or curiosity to really investigating the truth claims of the LDS Church from a more rigorous historical and scientific epistemology. That type of Devout Mormon is not my intended audience.

My ideal audience is those who have already deconstructed the traditional LDS truth claims on their own before coming to this site, and who no longer believe in the traditional LDS narrative. Note that the prominent LDS historian Richard Bushman said the following in the YouTube video here at the 44 minute mark, back in June 12, 2016: "I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The [LDS] Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change." Many thinking Mormons have been making that change in narrative and this site fits that agenda of building a reconstructed narrative. So I am writing for those who have already questioned the traditional narrative that Richard Bushman has acknowledged is not true.

I am writing for those who wish to reconstruct after deconstructing nearly all their previous beliefs based on the former traditional LDS narrative. For many this has meant maybe even questioning the existence of God and the other truth claims of the Bible. The Emergent paradigm does not require those who have become more skeptical, naturalistic, or nontheistic to believe in anything beyond what they are rationally capable of believing within a scientific paradigm. At most the ideas on this site are meant to be explored and entertained as "possibilities."

I am writing for those who have gone through their justifiable "angry phase" of deconstruction and are ready for a new stage of processing through the option of reconstructing something positive to believe in and/or appreciate about Mormonism.

So rather than the anti-Mormonism type websites that seek to only deconstruct and criticize the Mormon Church and fail to appreciate it on any level; with this website I instead take the reader on a more pro-Mormon journey past a faith crisis by helping them see that there is more than just the one option of exmormon atheistic nihilism. In other words, they can instead construct a more positive and meaningful Marcus Borg type paradigm and then build upon that foundation a way to then appreciate Mormonism through my Emergent Mormon Perspective.

My agenda however is not to persuade someone to return to "full activity" in the LDS Church. For one can learn about my Emergent paradigm and come away better appreciating and valuing Mormonism as a "mytho-philosophy" but still decide to never attend an LDS church again. This site is simply for anyone wanting to appreciate and find value in Mormonism from a non-orthodox perspective, regardless of whether or not they decide to be a churchgoer. In other words, this blog provides a way of interpreting LDS Scripture and LDS philosophy outside the traditional mainstream Brighamite/LDS point of view. This site might therefore be helpful to anyone wanting to stay LDS even though they doubt or question most or all of the LDS Church's truth claims. Or it might be helpful to the former-Mormon who does not intend to return to the LDS Church as a churchgoer but nevertheless is curious if there is another way to appreciate and value Mormonism from a more philosophical perspective.

Do I Attend the LDS Church?

As for myself, I produced this blog with the intent to find the positive in Mormonism. During the formation of this blog, I contemplated becoming a New Order Mormon or Mormon on the Edge (as Christian Kimball describes his way of "Mormoning"). In the end, as of 2024, I have decided not to becoming a regular churchgoing LDS member because it currently does not interest me to do so. But who knows, maybe in the future I will consider it. I will say this, of all the "Christian" options, Mormon-Christianity makes the most sense to me. Now, just because I personally have decided not to participate in the LDS Church, that does not mean that others might find the content of this blog useful in their own attempt to stay LDS as a non-traditional/unorthodox LDS member (i.e. a New Order Mormon or Edgy Mormon). Also, even though I am not a churchgoer, I still continue to respect my LDS Pioneer Heritage and I still find value in Mormonism as a mythological life-affirming philosophy through my Emergent Mormon Perspective. I just practice my appreciation and respect for the ideas of Mormonism as a philosophy while on the outside of the LDS Church (i.e. not being an official LDS member on the "covenant path").

So even though for right now I personally choose not to go down the path of becoming a "temple Mormon" again, I still consider myself pro-mormon and "culturally Mormon" as it will always be my spiritual home (a place of comfort and familiarity) after growing up in the LDS Church and having Pioneer ancestors. So the Emergent Paradigm is for me my own private way of still connecting with my Mormon ancestors and appreciating and valuing Mormonism as a philosophically life-affirming mythology.

I think this site would be helpful to the reader who wants to retain social ties in LDS culture or maybe they have an LDS friend or spouse they do not want to risk losing. Or perhaps they risk losing close connections with family members or losing a job if they came out as a full-blown exmormon. For these people, this option of re-interpreting Mormonism might be useful.

Responding to Ex-Mormon Critics Who Ask: "Why Even Bother with an Emergent Mormon Perspective?"

If the atheistic or agnostic exmormon reader is wondering why I have bothered reconstructing an Emergent Mormon worldview as an option, I answer that in detail in my blog post here: wherein I discuss the work of Joseph Campbell and the power of a worldview. But the short answer is along the lines of why did Marcus Borg reconstruct a Christian worldview based on biblical scholarship and his historical-metaphorical lens of interpretation (which has greatly inspired me in producing this blog)? Why did Nietzsche write Thus Spoke Zarathustra and call it a holy book (which also inspired this blog)?

Why did the Founders of the United States write The Declaration of Independence that speaks of Nature's God and "all men are created equal" based on the worldview that we "are endowed by [our] Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?"

I answer these questions in my blog post here. The short answer is that we are pattern-seeking, story-making creatures that form worldviews. We all have a worldview. So why not form one that empowers you rather than hold a depressing nihilistic worldview where you are just thought of as a clump of cells with no soul and life has no ultimate meaning? This site is my own attempt at rejecting philosophical pessimism and atheistic nihilism and forming a more empowering worldview!

 Shorter Summaries:

Quick note before I continue, this is a longer treatment of what this blog is about and my journey to how I developed the Emergent Mormon Perspective. For a quick and short bullet point summary of the Emergent Mormon philosophy see here and here.

A good summary of my Emergent-Mormon views is through what I call the Smith-Pratt Christian paradigm. In other words, for a better understanding of the interpretive Lens (or hermeneutic) I use and how it's different from other Mormon sects and theological paradigms, see my explanation here. For I see or interpret things more through what I have coined the Smith-Pratt Paradigm.

From Pauline-Protestantism to an Indo-European Spirituality The simplest way to explain the difference between my Emergent Mormon paradigm and the traditional LDS/Brighamite Mormon paradigm, is that I see Mormonism emerging out of a culturally Protestant milieu and Pauline mindset, with Joseph Smith himself mentally and "spiritually" evolving away from or beyond the ideas of Paul, Augustine, Luther and Calvin; and moving more toward a spiritual naturalism or what I call in another website of mine, a more Indo-European spirituality or solar pantheonism. At the core of this is a Pro-Body worldview versus an Anti-Body worldview which I will summarize below.

A key distinguishing factor between what I call Emergent Mormonism and traditional LDS Church doctrine is that Emergent Mormonism seeks to return to the original pro-body mentality pre1900. This can be summarized as follows:

Pro-Body Mormonism:

• Key Scriptures and Teachings in 1840s Mormonism that are radically Pro-Body: D&C sections 130-132 on spirit-matter, God as a fleshly body, and sexual reproductivity of male and female Gods, etc.; The Happiness Letter, wherein Smith basically explains to Nancy that Gods is more liberal in this views compared to the anti-body puritans; Book of Abraham 2:11 on the sperm/seed of the body; Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 where one of the first images of God the Father is the phallic deity Min symbolizing male sexual energy; Pratt's essay Intelligence and Affection where he criticizes the body-shaming anti-body puritanical Protestants. The Absurdities of Immaterialism (published in 1849) by Orson Pratt, which argues for a spiritual naturalism, and was later referenced in footnotes in the later D&C editions. Meanwhile, one of the first LDS diagrams was Orson Hyde's Kingdom of God diagram which summarizes the Pro-Body Smith-Pratt paradigm as basically a more Nietzscheanish affirmation of life or pro-Nature, i.e. ascendant hierarchies in life wherein one's crowned enthronement was won through one's exaltations in power, status and sealed friends and spouses; thus creating a territorial kingdom of material acquisition: just as evolutionary life itself expands through acquisition in an ascendant evolutionary manner. Thus, 1840s to 1890, was the peak years of this Pro-Body mentality.

Anti-Body Corporate Brethrenism:

• After 1900 this original Pro-Body attitude of 1840s Mormonism was replaced with Anti-Body ideology: Pauline sainthood; body-shaming "worthiness interviews" in a Purity Culture and atmosphere of Perfectionism in a high demand religion.

From 1900 to today original Pro-Body Mormonism has been replaced with Anti-Body Brethrenism. The Anti-Body mentality is manifest in LDS Purity Culture and shame and tame dynamics with worthiness interviews where one is either stamped worthy/pure or unworthy impure by older leaders for example asking young men and women questions in private like f they masturbate. Or any LDS adult being called in for a disciplinary council for having premarital sex. LDS Missionaries not allowed to date and are basically expected to be the equivalent of celibate Catholic priest completely sexually repressed as if their sex drive should be erased and are indoctrinated into a gnostic anti-body Pauline-Augustinian ideology that is at odds with the 1840s Smith-Pratt Pro-Body Ethos summarized above.

Thus the Emergent Mormon paradigm can also be defined as distinguishing between Pro-Body Mormonism and Anti-Body Brethrenism. For, one could argue that the original pro-body version of Mormonism did not engage in todays near "Brethren worship," for example Joseph Smith himself was called in for disciplinary councils and so it was not wrong to criticize the Brethren despite what Elder Oaks claims today. Thus I would argue that Brethrenism is not original Mormonism. So that I see Brethrenism as the LDS leadership after 1900, adopting the puritanical Protestant mindset as covered by in the book Make Yourselves Gods: Mormons and the Unfinished Business of American Secularism by Peter Coviello. In other words, what has happened is that the anti-body puritan mindset which Joseph Smith was emerging out of by the 1840s became reestablished in the minds of the post-1900 LDS Brethren. Thus, you see a anti-body mentality in for example the ideas spread by Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball and Boyd K. Packer, etc. So whether it was the anti-body book, The Miracle of Forgiveness or the My Little Factory pamphlet, one can see a clear attempt to return to Protestant puritanism which Joseph Smith had clearly rejected. For these Augustinian attitudes were in direct opposition to the radical affirmation of the body one finds in the Smith-Pratt paradigm: wherein Joseph Smith produced scriptures and sermons and private letters where he clearly broke away from this anti-body mentality and even corrected for the Pauline despising of the body by radically affirming the body and even declaring God the Father has a body of sensual flesh. Brigham Young while flawed nevertheless maintained the radical pro-body mentality and more Indo-European pantheonistic theology of Gods plural. For example, in The Discourses of Brigham Young which I read on my LDS mission, Young refers to the Gods plural. He did not try to sound Protestant and monotheist and distinguished between the monotheistic Sectarian Puritans and the more sex positive body-affirming polygamist Mormon mindset and believing in Gods plural. So what we find in original 1840 to1890 Mormonism is a pro-body mentality. All of this changed after Brigham Young died and when the more Protestant American government forced the Mormons to basically change their pro-body practices which also altered their pro-body mentality, in that after 1890 the LDS Brethren gradually began to adopt and spread the more Protestant ideology which was more anti-body; as they sought to be just as anti-body or puritanical as the Protestant Puritans. Thus after Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and the Pratt Brothers had died, the radical physicalism/spirit-materialism of early Mormonism was replaced with a return to Augustinianism. In other words, there was a return to a division of the body and the spirit while Joseph Smith himself had clearly fused the sensual body and spirit together as good and holy. This Emergent Mormon Perspective is therefore the position that LDS theology evolved to his pro-body point which is the ideal point, and has since then declined into a more anti-body organization after 1900. This point of view is obviously a threat to the "Brethrenite" orthodox LDS point of view, that presents the idea that from the beginning there was one single consistent Doctrine or Dogma. In contrast, from my emergent perspective I do not see One Dogma held steadily since the beginning of Mormonism in 1830, but instead I see conflicting ideas within the LDS scriptures themselves. This introduction will cover the main ideas of Emergent Mormonism, but a good way to understand my perspective is my blog series here where I compare Joseph Smith's theological philosophy to that of Nietzsche's philosophy. Similar to Nietzsche, Joseph Smith died before he could complete his evolving theology. This lack of completion is unimportant from the emergent perspective, for what is important is seeing the emergence away from Augustinian-Christianity and Joseph’s growing more toward a theological structure more in line with a form of "European Christianity," as I cover here. So rather than a top down process of revelation from "on high" with Joseph Smith being merely a puppeted conduit of divine communication; I instead try to humanize Joseph Smith and see Mormonism through his own my lived autobiography and bio-physiology. In other words, I see Mormonism emerging out of not just Smith's intellectual learning and cultural environment but emerging from our his bodily energies, which led to the production of Mormonism by 1844. In other words, I see a bottom up cultural evolution within Mormonism, with Joseph Smith himself going through a transformation in worldview: as he moved more away from the Augustinian mindset to a more Indo-European and/or Nietzscheanish perspective. Thus, the Emergent Mormon Perspective is not a Creed or Dogma but a way of seeing and understanding the emergence of Mormonism. Thus, it is about finding value in Mormonism through the interpretive lens of Joseph Smith as a kind of a role model intellectually speaking: wherein, just as Joseph Smith went through an evolution in thought and perspective, from a more Pauline or Protestant Anti-Nature perspective, to a more life-affirming Pro-Nature worldview, so can you.

From this emergent perspective, Mormon scripture and sermons by Smith are reexamined as containing a progression in thoughts and ideas and not one consistent theology or dogma. With the final ideas emerging through Joseph Smith's bodily vitality as they begin to take on a more body-affirming mindset after 1835. The Emergent Mormon paradigm therefore does not try to harmonize the conflicting ideas in the span of LDS scripture from 1829 to 1844, which would be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Instead, in the emergent view LDS Scripture is treated chronologically with previous LDS scriptures being interpreted through the later insights that Joseph Smith came to by 1844.

Joseph Smith's Transition from Protestant to more Humanistic as a Key Component of the Emergent Mormon Perspective 

What I basically describe throughout this blog is the thesis and/or theory that Joseph Smith began his Christian ministry in the 1830s as mostly a typical Protestant minister in his mindset; but that over time he grew out of the Puritan Creeds of Protestantism and studied other philosophies and the sciences; to the point that by the 1840s, Smith had become a more humanistic and Nietzcheanish theological philosopher.

This is my working theory that makes up most of the blog posts on this blog (which provide evidence supporting this theory); and it was within this theory that I was considering being LDS again starting around 2018, but doing so as a New Order Mormon or what Christian Kimball calls an Edgy Mormon (as I discussed briefly above).

Mormonism as a European-Adjacent Mythos

In composing this blog, I had been inspired by websites like churchistrue.com, staylds.com, a thoughtful-faith.com, and wardradio.com, etc. When composing this blog, I was not attempting to be a scriptural-literalist or True Believer by any sense of the word for I had simply outgrown that stage of faith; but I thought I could kind of wiggle my way back into the Brighamite-Mormon Church as a non-literal believer, like the way Jordan Peterson interprets the Bible. This became an option for me when I became more aware of the early philosophical insights of Nauvoo era Mormonism: which was more pro-bodied, scientifically oriented, and philosophically rich with life-affirming ideas.

I see 1840s-Mormonism as a movement away from Augustinian anti-body puritanism and more toward a more pro-body/"paganish" theology which I cover on this blog in my blog series Mormonism as Christian-Europeanism. So this part of early Mormonism is a more pro-body version of Mormonism.

What I Don't Believe In (Yet Support if Others Choose to Believe in it) from an Emergent Mormon Perspective:

Right off the bat let me state clearly upfront again that I am not a traditional LDS believer. For example, I do not believe in the historicity of the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. So this blog site will not be promoting a literalistic belief system. To simplify and clarify further, I do not believe the Mormon priesthood was actually extended to Joseph Smith by the deceased John the Baptist. I do not think that one's attainment of the highest degree of glory in the afterlife is contingent upon one being sealed in the temple. I do not believe in wearing garments or obediently following "the covenant path." I do not believe that families can be separated forever based on whether or not they pay tithing and obey and follow "the covenant path." I do not think that the LDS undergarment has supernatural powers. However, I do not try to discourage other Mormons from these beliefs and practices if it works for them. I also think that the ideas, rituals and ethical habits of the Brighamite sect do have practical value and do act as a civilizing affect from a Jonathan Haidt / Durkheim perspective.

Mormonism through the Lens of A New Kind of Christianity

A good way to understand where I am coming from is Brian D. McLaren's book A New Kind of Christianity. In this book Brian presents the position that how one interprets the Bible begins with one's starting perspective or paradigm. He uses diagrams like this one to point out that if we begin with for example a Platonist point of view, and read the New Testament through that perspective, we will come to different conclusions than if we had for example a more Hebrew paradigm. John Spong makes a similar argument in his book This Hebrew Lord.

Brian McLaren goes on to make the important point that if we read the New Testament through the interpretive lenses of for example Martin Luther and Augustine, we will come to certain prepackaged dogmatic conclusions that may not be the most accurate interpretation of the New Testament. He then suggests reading the New Testament afresh through the teachings of Jesus and not instead reading into the New Testament the later interpretations provided by Augustine, Luther and Calvin, etc.

So good way to understand therefore where I am coming from, is that I am taking a similar approach as does Brian McLaren, in that I am not interpreting Mormonism through the lenses of Brigham Young or Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkey (or any of the current LDS leaders), but instead I'm taking the approach of interpreting Mormonism more through the lenses of Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt, as well through the lens of an Indo-European and a more Nietzcheanish perspective.

As covered briefly above, my approach to Mormon Scripture is based on the interpretive approaches of Jordan Peterson, Joseph Campbell, Marcus Borg, Rob Bell, and John Shelby Spong. In other words, after learning how to interpret the Bible more historically and metaphorically (thus rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, as Spong puts it) by using historical biblical scholarship; I was better able to then turn this biblical critical eye to Mormon Scripture, and also see it through the interpretive lens of the historical-metaphorical method.

There is an LDS member that has attempted to understand Mormonism through this metaphorical perceptive at churchistrue.com. Doing this myself, I was able to see how Mormon Scripture can be psychologically useful in being inspiring and providing existential meaning through a 21st Century Rational Worldview.

My Own "Articles of Faith" to Describe the Emergent Mormon Perspective:

Before I continue, I thought I would give a brief synopsis or summary of the core ideas and beliefs of my Emergent Mormon Perspective. First, the Emergent paradigm has much in common with other Book of Mormon based Restorationist sects and movements. For example, similar to the Remnant Fellowship that meets in homes, the emergent perspective does not consider church or chapel attendance a requirement.

The Emergent Mormon Perspective also has much in common with the humanistic Christian theologies of Marcus Borg and John Spong. The meaning of "emergent" in Emergent-Mormonism: As covered above, the meaning of emergent is meant to emphasize that Mormonism went through a process of Joseph Smith emerging out of his Augustinian Protestant mindset and cultural milieu, and like grass breaking through concrete, his instinctual vitality eventually emerged forth over time to produce a more life-affirming humanistic theology of the body: which I think aligns well with modern science and Nietzsche's philosophy. In other words, in the Emergent Mormon perspective, Joseph Smith's revelations and scriptures he produced underwent a human process of evolution and development toward life-affirmation.

As a possibilian, I choose to believe in the possibility that the Creative Realm, as I call it, operated through Joseph Smith's fallible intellect and creative skills, thus his theology changed and developed overtime; from the Kirtland and Missouri phases to the later City of Nauvoo after 1839: when I believe Joseph Smith fully sprouted forth, breaking free from Protestant dogma and Augustinian ideas that despised the body, and instead he emerged with a life affirming theology of the body: with an emphasis on joy, play and laughter in the fleshly body.

A core concept of Emergent-Mormonism is my web page The Phases & Strategies of God: A New Approach to the Restored Gospel. Where I make the case for the restored gospel as a restoration of God’s masculine side through the Book of Mormon as a fifth gospel; and the 1840s City of Nauvoo as the restoration of the Hebrew oriented sensuality of God. The Only Doctrine: The only "doctrine" of Emergent Mormonism is the Lectures on Faith which are actually very rational and psychologically empowering as a form of positive thinking: with faith described as a principle of action, etc. The Lectures were the original official doctrine and teach salvation and exaltation through basically having the courage to take action in life and rising in rank and power; in order to be exalted through deification after the baptism of fire and antifragile endurance toward permanent deification. The Godhead: God is an expanding force of power as a fluid energy -- akin to dark matter and dark energy in physics, and similar to Nietzsche's will to power and process theology -- God as that which expands and emerges as rising forms and phenomena toward higher expanded states from exaltation to exaltation. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are metaphorical representations of this ultimately mysterious Source Power behind the Big Bang, the laws of logic and physics, and the formation of material forms from energy within our expanding universe.

The original doctrine of the Godhead pre-1900, as explained by Joseph Smith, Parley and Orson Pratt and John Widtsoe, is the functional Godhead theology for Emergent-Mormonism. As this was the original Godhead and it differs from the Godhead presented by Brigham Young and later James Talmage in 1916, which became the official Godhead doctrine for the institutional Brighamite/LDS sect. The Book of Mormon: The Book of Mormon is not about an actual historical people but is an American Epic like the Aeneid or Homer's Odesssy. Similar to the Gospels themselves, which John Crossan considers largely parables based on metaphorical stories, so too the Book of Mormon is parabolic or what biblical scholars call midrash as pseudepigrapha. Or what I call American Apocrypha. For example, see Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon.

The Gold Plates through Second Sight:

Like John Hamer of the Community of Christ, I think Joseph Smith literally believed God was directing him. I think that he sincerely believed that his imagination and waking dreams were revelations from God. So that he was what I call a sincere perceiver. I demonstrate how the gold plates were most likely always experienced through his and other's imagination, which they sincerely believed to be someone entering into the Divine Realm beyond the veil and seeing "spiritual things" that could only be experienced through one's spiritual eyes (not one's natural eyes), as explained in in my document: The Gold Plates & Second Sight: A Theory of how Joseph Smith was a Sincere Perceiver through the Eyes of Faith.

Grace & Works: The Emergent-Mormon perspective holds to the original doctrine of saved by grace alone through the merits of Christ as described in the Book of Mormon itself. The concept of saved by grace alone through faith was originally the method that the apostle Paul used to overcome the requirement of his Gentile converts from converting to Judaism and following all 613 laws of the Torah. The Book of Mormon midrashically expands upon this Pauline idea and further updates it in an American context, by removing any performative works required by the Protestant sects of Joseph Smith's day: for example, by emphasizing that one can bypass ministers and pastors and their ecclesiastical requirements for membership in their churches, by one ascending to the throne room of God and being instantly saved, exalted, and deified. So that one's salvation and exaltation is assured without even needing to go to church every Sunday (see Alma 32: 8-11).

The Book of Mormon basically criticizes set Creeds, Biblicism, and most Protestant sects, and instead is essentially an ascension text: meaning it is designed to bypass all authority claims by clergy and their creeds and sects by one having a direct encounter with the divine and metaphysically ascending to the throne room of God and being permanently saved and exalted (i.e. deified through the Light of Christ).

The Lectures on Faith also teach an instant and permanent salvation and exaltation (deification), through one's baptism and faith alone, without the added requirements of performative religious works like a "covenant path," but only baptism and the transformative nooma and enduring persecution and suffering with spiritual antifragility. Tithing: Tithing is optional and can be given to any church or charity, not only the institutional Brighamite Church; and if one does choose to pay tithing it should be done not out of duty or fear or to keep one's membership in an institutional church, but out of a sense of charity. Temple Attendance and Garments: The temple rituals and garments are now obsolete and are no longer necessary. The garments were originally designed to remind those who went through the temple to keep polygamy a secret to avoid being accused of the crime of bigamy. The temple ritual itself was originally designed for the practice of plural marriage: from the polygamous couple kneeling at an altar and thus metaphorically sacrificing their monogamous Protestant beliefs in becoming polygamists; to entering through the veil to learn that the God the Father has a sensual body of flesh and bones. Now that polygamy has ended and the doctrines of God's embodiment has been engrained in the minds of LDS members, the temple and garments are now obsolete and not necessary because they have served their purpose. For more details, see my post The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The Mormon People.

Polygamy: Polygamy was instituted primarily to produce the Mormon People as a quasi-ethnicity, similar to Abraham's seed being responsible for producing the ethnicity of the Jews or Israelites. Polygamy was meant as a "sacrifice" on the altar, the sacrifice being the expiation of Evangelical Protestant dogma from the psyche of Mormons: so that one no longer saw God as a bodyless no-thing without parts or passions, but that God the Father has flesh and bones and passions. This was emphasized in order to redeem the earth and the sensual fleshly body as both good and holy. The Priesthood: The priesthood is now obsolete because the priesthood was only meant to manage and orchestrate polygamy and the temple rituals. For Joseph Smith was a temple high priest and every priesthood office, as I see it, was meant to uphold and sustain the eventual rise of Joseph Smith as temple priest. As temple priest, Joseph Smith chose an inner circle who secretly entered into polygamy which was why the Freemasonic penalty oaths were used, and garment symbols were also in part reminders to keep polygamy a secret. In other words, I think the whole intention of synthesizing the new embodied-God theology, polygamy, priesthood ranks, and Freemasonry, all into one temple ritual, was designed to maintain a certain degree of secrecy and loyalty among those introduced into the new radical theology of the body and the birthing of an Abrahamic Mormon People through plural marriage. The temple ritual has had over a century to change the minds of Mormons toward the new theology of the body and birth a quasi-ethnic Mormon People, which has been accomplished. So that now the temple ritual is not necessary.

As I explained in my blog series here, polygamy was basically a process of artificial selection, with those with the best Christian virtues and masculine and feminine instincts and traits, passing on their genes to produce the Mormon People. After Mormonism had spent nearly a century selecting for the most virtuous personalities and noble character traits, there arose a quasi-ethnic Mormon People.

The protestantized US Government of that day, then forced the Brighamite Church to end polygamy between 1890 and 1930, which I think can be reasonably interpreted as a "sign" (if one is open to supernatural intervention) that polygamy had permanently ended; and would no longer be practiced ever again because polygamy had fulfilled its intentions to produce a Mormon People. Or one can take a non-supernatural, more philosophical position, and see that polygamy was only practiced with the intent to select for a quasi-ethnic Mormon People. Now that such a thing (i.e. Peoplehood) has been accomplished, polygamy is no longer needed.

The Second Coming: The Emergent Mormon perspective holds to a view similar to a preterist interpretation of biblical end-times events. I see all apocalyptic "second coming" language the same way as the hell-fire and brimstone language in the Book of Mormon, which D&C 19 describes as basically fictional imagery designed to work upon the heart of the reader to motivate them to be good but should not be taken literally. Furthermore, Joseph Smith himself wanted to counteract the fear-mongering of the Millerites of his day, so he himself removed the fear and terror in his members by postponing the second coming until he was at least 85 years old. This obviously means that the "second coming" cannot be imminent (very soon) and should not be used to scare people into obedience and denying this world for a feared coming apocalypse. For, according to preterism the Bible itself says the "second coming" already occurred around 70 AD.

In short, the Emergent-Mormon perspective sees Joseph Smith as a creative genius (the assessment of Yale Professor Harold Bloom), who used his own artistic imagination to correct the mistakes and errors in Augustinian Christianity that Nietzsche pointed out. Whether this was through inspiration or mere human creativity and vitality, or both, I believe that Joseph Smith's Mormonism updates and improves upon Catholic and Protestant Christianity and provides a more rational, science friendly, Life-affirming spiritual philosophy; that's better than any other version of Christian philosophy I'm aware of.

Philosophical-Mormonism versus Supernatural-Mormonism

I don't think most people realize just how radical original Mormonism is as a life philosophy with it's life affirming theology of the body, which is radically pro-earth (i.e. Life-oriented). Buddhism is basically a nihilistic religion in its monastic form as it basically encourages one to escape from bodily life and go meditate in a cave or monastery being celibate and seeking the state of Non-Self. The same anti-body attitude is found in Catholicism with for example celibate priests which is based on the idea that God the Father has no genitals nor gender and he is basically a "single Dad" without a heavenly wife or consort. Protestantism is the same way in its Puritan form. What I realized reading Nietzsche is that his philosophy is often arguing for a return to the body and the earth. This is the affirmation of the one thing we know for sure to be true which is cosmic Change and Transformation. For example, our best science reveals that our Universe is expanding through the cosmic evolution of forms while Life reformulates new organic forms from previous forms; as the consistence overriding principle of change and transformation continues on growing ever changing forms of matter and energy. From this perspective, all forms of matter (including species and cultures) are either growing healthily and expanding or becoming unhealthy and deteriorating and degenerating. Nietzsche's whole philosophy is an attempt to promote that which "is life-promoting, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating." When I examined Joseph Smith through this particular lifeward perspectival lens, I began to see that Joseph Smith, like Nietzsche, was radically affirmative of the earthly matter and bodily life. I began to see that Joseph Smith saying that God the Father is an embodied man with genitals, and is married to a heavily Mother, was a radical affirmation of this biological world and our sensual bodies.

So a simple summary of Emergent Mormonism as a Life Philosophy is that it's a positive affirmation of cosmic change and emerging Life itself; and that which is culturally healthy, bodily positive, and species-cultivating. This life-affirming lens is the common point of view in all of my documents and blog posts.

What I try to show is that even if one is not Mormon they can appreciate Mormonism for its humanistic ideas as a life-affirming theo-philosophy that says Yes to life, as opposed to the negative pessimistic philosophies that say No to life, that despise the body and make people feel unhealthy shame and guilt for being human.

The Lens of Philosophical Mormonism 

Besides calling myself an Emergent Mormon, I like Philosophical Mormon as well, which says everything. It avoids the question as to how much I believe in the supernatural claims of today's Mormonism(s). Instead, the focus is on Mormonism as a philosophy and specifically as an ethic and a philosophical worldview or a Life Philosophy. 

Click to Enlarge 

(Image Source) 

I'm not the first to approach Mormonism from a philosophical position, for example see:

• Mormon Philosophy Simplified: An Easy LDS Approach to Classic Philosophical Questions by Brittney Lowe Hartley.

• Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology by Sterling M. McMurrin

My philosophically-centered approach allows me to focus mostly on interpreting and examining Mormonism from the perspective of the philosophy of Nietzche, Joseph Campbell, Marcus Borg, and Jordan Peterson, etc. So that instead of examining the supernatural claims of Mormonism as either scientifically true or false, the question for me instead becomes a matter of "philosophical" interpretations of Mormon texts through the lens of it as a life philosophy providing a meaning in life and thematic energy producing vitality. 

The philosophical approach includes a psychological as well as a mythological perspective, which both fall under the umbrella of philosophy. So my take on a "philosophical Mormonism," for me becomes a more Nietzschean and "Petersonian" philosophical perspective of Mormonism: which is an interpretation of Mormonism through the psychological lens of: Is it as life-affirming as an artistic form of inspiring poetry? I believe that like Nietzsche who was a philosopher poet, Joseph Smith was also a philosopher poet. Both men were seeking to help others overcome atheistic nihilism and pessimistic despair through what Joseph Campbell called the hero's journey cycle.

So that the answer to questions about my opinion of Mormonism and how and why I derive value from it, is for me always more of a philosophical answer. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and there is wisdom in Mormonism. Part of that wisdom is knowing that Mormonism evolved over time just like Catholicism and Protestantism did. Thus my blog title Emergent Mormon.

If someone were to retort, "Well what do you think of the Mormon priesthood and garments and them saying what you can and can't do on Sundays and the 'rules' on not drinking tea or the rules on sexuality?"  The first answer is see the Articles of Faith of Emergent Mormonism above, second I would say that Philosophical Mormonism is not tied to the control mechanisms and demands of the Utah-based LDS Church, Brighamite sect (or what I call "Brethrenism" because Brighamites seek to obey the will of the top 15 Leaders called "the Brethren"). So philosophical Mormonism is a separate epistemology and life philosophy, unconnected to the Brighamite sect that functions more like a business Corporation at this point as of 2024. Although, one can certainly be a Brighamite Mormon and a philosophical Mormon at the same time, yet the level of devotion and adherence to dogma will differ between the more dogmatic rule keeping types and the more poetic and philosophical types. A philosophical Mormon may also not attend church at all or only Chapel, and never seek a temple recommend.

As a philosophical Mormon I do not care what the more supernaturalistic type Mormons say one must believe to be a "true" Mormon. For every supernatural version of Brighamite Mormonism is different from the previous versions just a few decades ago, as the "correct dogma" changes about every thirty years or so. In other words, every version of supernatural Mormonism has changed every 30 years or so since it's inception with Brigham Young. For example, Brigham Young preached that Adam was God, but now that supernatural belief is rejected in the Brighamite sect. Joseph Smith published The Lectures on Faith as the doctrine bound in the Scriptures; but around 1900 the later Brighamite leaders removed the Lectures from the Canon, because Talmage and others had completely changed the theology; and so they needed to remove the original doctrine of the Lectures. 

Besides that, there is more than just the Brighamite Mormons (headquartered in Utah): there are the RLDS, the Cutlerites and Rigonites, to name just a few other Mormon sects; and there is even a YouTube channel by Baptists who treat the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture! So there is no one version of "supernatural Mormonism." But there is one continual and consistent "philosophy of Mormonism" -- from the beginning philosophical ideas found in The Book of Mormon, up to the Book of Abraham (which can be interpreted as allegorical), pointing to an emerging philosophy of Mormonism which contains a consistently emerging trajectory toward a positive and optimistic affirmation of the Body. 

I thus see Mormonism as an overall consistent philosophy that radically affirms biological-life and venerates the heroic virtues -- from the fictional literary characters Nephi to Captain Moroni, to the real life  Joseph Smith as warrior-like General the Nauvoo Legion. As well as the courage of my Mormon Pioneer ancestors and the promotion of manly fathers and feminine mothers building healthy families and communities through what Don Bradley calls the restitution of Friendship and Denver S. calls a Peoplehood. That is the consistent philosophical grounding of Mormonism. 

So in my view, no supernatural sect of Mormonism or any dogmatic type of Brighamite-Mormon has the right to tell me what it is to be Mormon and divide me from the one uniform "philosophical Mormon heritage" itself. I have as much a right to identify as a philosophical Mormon -- and claim my own ties to my Mormon Heritage -- as they do. They are merely clinging to the latest and current supernatural tradition(s) which will simply change in another 30 years or so. On the other hand, I am grounding the Emergent Perspective in the same lifeward attitude held by my Mormon ancestors' and their devotion to the same philosophical grounding of Mormonism in a Theology of the Body. For my ancestors going back far enough did not even have the same exact "doctrinal beliefs" as Brighamite Mormons have today, and yet there is nonetheless a shared common philosophical grounding in a consistent trajectory toward the affirmation of life in the body. As they lived out the life affirming, hero-venerating, friendship philosophy of Mormonism, which has spanned over a 150 years and has the same consistent themes and ideals that resonate with me even today through a non-traditional perspective; and thus I continue to find value in it: as that which can nergize us with psychological vitality and great health through poetic metaphors and empowering stories of self-overcoming.

"Brethrenism" is Not Philosophical Emergent-Mormonism

After digging into Original Mormonism and recovering this body-positive version of philosophical Mormonism, I have found it ironic and unfortunate that today's orthodox Brighamite Church, starting in 1900 (and throughout the McConkie era especially), has adopted a lot of Protestant's puritanical ideas and have largely joined Augustine in promoting a neurotic self-shaming attitude and a despising of the body. There was even an Area 70 who recently condemned this sad cultural trend in August 2021.

I also mean by Emergent-Mormon that the history of Mormonism is an emergent phenomenon, with Joseph Smith ultimately emerging out of his Protestant milieu and Augustinian thought forms in order to bloom as a spiritual philosopher and grow upward and onward cultivating a new species-cultivating field of theological ideas and innovations, precept upon precept (which is a book title by Robert Millet): as even orthodox LDS member Robert Millet acknowledges that there was a gradual evolutionary innovative process. In other words, the core of original Mormonism is Joseph Smith's eventual emerging out of and away from Augustinian Calvinism (as covered by LDS authors Terryl and Fiona Givens), and his moving toward what I consider a more humanistic Abrahamic Expansionism.

My Unique Contributions to Mormon Studies

Regarding The Book of Mormon and the Trinity debates, like whether or not Dan Vogel's modalism is correct or Clyde D. Ford's Alternative Trinitarianism is more accurate, etc., I believe I may have figured out the original Mormon Godhead. My research into this topic has actually led me to respect the biblical knowledge and midrashic skills of Joseph Smith. For the more I studied biblical scholarship the more amazing it was to see that Smith's scriptural productions on the Godhead actually aligned well with the original meaning of the Greek text of the New Testament, like my learning that Jesus is the Monogene of Jehovah. Another unique contribution I think I have made is related to the Godhead, which is my analysis of deification or theosis (in LDS scripture).

At a time when our current culture as of 2024 is emasculating males and devaluing fathers, there has been a resurgence in "Muscular Christianity" through books like No More Christian Nice Guy and When Christianity Was Muscular by Brett and Kate Mckay. From this perspective, I show how Mormonism is a positive affirmation of healthy masculinity by arguing from the framework of my website The Phases and Strategies of God: wherein I argue that in the first phase of God in the Hebrew Bible, God was manifest in a more masculine form of energy and vitality; and then we see a second phase of God and a more feminine ethos in the New Testament (with for example a more universal cosmopolitan emphasis) and a strategy of non-violence and voluntary martyrdom, which I argue is partially a psychological strategy under first century Roman oppression of Jewish-Christians.

This strategy led to antifamilial tendencies and even advocating celibacy and a lack of retirement planning, which was all within a specific cultural context and thus a temporary strategy and phase of God's People.

From this perspective of phases and strategies, we find the importance or even the necessity of a philosophically "American gospel" today: a time when the family unit is best for children, and after American democracy was invented, retirement planning has developed, and it is no longer treason to declare Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar as Lord (as such first century Roman courts no longer exist); for after Christians were no longer under Roman oppression there began a new cultural frontier in the West, for a new cultural prophet and seer like Peter and Paul to provide a synthesis of the energy and vitality of the Hebrew Bible within the paradigm of the humanistic Jewish mysticism of the New Testament; providing, through an ongoing artistic process of midrash and parabolic creativity, a way to be Christian in the modern world that affirms the body and the family. Thus I show the modern usefulness of LDS Scripture as a Life-affirming theo-philosophy.

I also make the case for respecting your Mormon Heritage and argue against the nihilistic forms of exmormon atheism and show how they themselves are engaging in a kind of religion-making in my blog series here.

I present a view of plural marriage which honors and respects my pioneer ancestors who entered into that practice, and yet I provide a theory for why it was practiced: that presents plural marriage as only having a temporary purpose that has been accomplished by 1890. My thesis allows for the modern LDS woman to see plural marriage as a relic of the past and that it's something she would never have to practice today or in the future based on my conclusions.

I have also created a document explaining the possible meaning of the mark upon the "skins" of the Lamanites, which I interpret as possibly being only a metaphor with the word skin being synonymous with fruit peelings (as in "fruit skins") based on Lehi's vision of the illuminated (bright "white"-lighted) fruit skins on the tree of life in 1 Nephi 8. The "mark" could is thus be very likely a reference to skin tattoos or some other self-imposed marking (see Alma 3:4) and/or simply a metaphor for the dimming (spiritually darkening) affect of those with whom the Light of God withdraws; compared to those in 3 Nephi 19: 25: who receive Christ's radiant light and shine bright like a white light bulb being literally illuminated and energized by actual divine Light; and thus the "mark" on the Lamanites would only be a recognizing of the spiritual dimming effect of those with a spiritual fruit peeling of blackness, as in a dimming of their countenance, as if the state of their inner self and attitude is decaying/blackening like unripe/rotting fruit skins; which is symbolic of death and cultural degeneration; as the Light of Christ withdraws from a people (or culture) that has been infected by wicked (destructive) traditions. So that in actuality The Book of Mormon is very likely an anti-racist book, as the never-been-Mormon Peter Coviello (and others) basically argue. See my document here for more details.

However, there is still a possibility that the original intentions of the Book of Mormon was to in fact refer to skins as actual skin color/pigmentation and not as a metaphor; and therefore I personally believe that the best path forward for the Mormon Church is to abandon translations that use the word "skin" in the Book of Mormon and instead follow the example of the Remnant Fellowship and put out a new translation of the Book of Mormon like they did. For example, in their book Covenant of Christ: A Modern English Translation of the Book of Mormon, they removed the problematic use of the word "skin" and replaced it with "countenance."

In Conclusion

The Emergent Mormon Perspective is not about creeds and doctrine, but the philosophy of Mormonism. There's not actually one true "Mormon Doctrine" anyway. For example, the original "doctrine" of Mormonism was the 1835 Lectures on Faith, which was less about dogma and instead they were lectures on conveying the attributes of God. Interestingly, the Lectures defined "faith" as "a principle of action." In other words, it was less about blind belief and more about trusting in God to empower you to take action. This it had a more practical intent rather than a dogmatic intent.

The Emergent Mormon Perspective is in brief the point of view that sees the 1840s as emergent pinnacle of Joseph Smith's revelatory genius and the formation of his Americanized Gospel. Alongside Parley P. Pratt, Joseph Smith produced a unique pro-body theology in Nauvoo which made it distinct and different from the anti-body attitude in the Augustine-Luther paradigm.

The core theological innovation of 1840s Nauvoo and the Americanized Restored Gospel was revealing the bodily nature of God, which changed the trajectory and began the process of reinterpreting all previous Mormon Scripture from a more pro-body perspective. For the view that God the Father has a sensual body of flesh and bone, affirmed one's own sensual body and earthy life. In other words, 1840s Nauvoo marked the pinnacle of American Mormonism through the Smith-Pratt Paradigm, as it radically affirmed bodily life. For by presenting God as flesh and bone, enthroned on high with a goddess wife, meant man was made in the mirror image of a sensual being of status and power. So that the healthy human drive for sex, status, and power was the way of God Himself; which was combined with the American principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or lasting joy). Thus man was not designed to deny his sex drive and be sexually repressed or permanently celibate, or seek to be low-status while virtue signaling one's humble piety; for all of that was based on Platonism and Creeds emerging from people like Augustine who had a body-despising neurotic mindset. Thus God was described in the Creeds as a body-less, passionless, immaterial deity; which in turn led to a culture of shame. For more details see my Blog Series: Sex, Gods, and Zion, as well as my document The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body.

Recently in 2022, the LDS scholar Patrick Mason said on the Mormon Stories Podcast that he was open to seeing The Book of Mormon as midrash. This is how I see and interpret The Book of Mormon, and the Gospels too for that matter. So I see no reason not to do what what Marcus Borg did in applying biblical scholarship to inform his Christian faith by doing the same with how I experience my Mormon faith.

The Emergent Mormon Perspective sees that polygamy was only a temporary practice, implemented in the mid 1800s in order to expiate the body-denying Creeds from the consciousness of the early Mormons. Now that that has been accomplished today, polygamy is finished and done away with. For more details see my post, The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The Mormon People. So in this context, whenever I discuss polygamy in my documents and blog posts I want to make it clear here at the outset that I don't think polygamy should be practiced today the way it was in Utah in the 1800s. In my introductory blog post to the Sex, Gods, and Zion blog series (and in the document The Secret Doctrine of God), I make the case that nineteenth century Mormon polygamy can be interpreted as an expiation ritual that was intended to change the consciousness of Mormons during the nineteenth century; so I am not saying that that form of polygamy should be practiced today. I instead make the case that the practice of polygamy, from an Emergent Mormon Perspective, ended permanently in 1890; and I give theological reasons for that conclusion based on LDS Scripture and Mormon History showing why we can say it was meant to permanently end around 1890. I just wanted to clarify that here at the outset in this introduction and I will end on that.