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 my 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.
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 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.
Why Bother with a Philosophical Mormonism?
If the atheistic or agnostic exmormon reader is wondering why I have bothered reconstructing an Emergent Mormon worldview? I answer that in detail in my blog post here where 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 worldview where you are just thought of as a clump of cells with no soul and life has no ultimate meaning? This is my attempt at forming an empowering worldview!
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 and why I identify as an LDS Christian see here and here.
Philosophical Mormonism versus Supernatural Mormonism
I don't think most people realize just how radical origional Mormonism is as a philosophy with it's life affirming theology of the body, which is radically pro earthly Life. 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 theophilosophy 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
I've been playing around with terms to describe myself and I think "philosophical Mormon" is the best label because it 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.
(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 philosophical-centered approach allows me to focus mostly on interpreting and examining Mormonism from the perspective of the philosophy of Nietzche, Joseph Campbell and Jordan Peterson. 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 additudinal energy and 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 Nietzchean and Petersonian philosophical perspective of Mormonism: which is an interpretation of Mormonism through the psychological lens of is it life-affirming as an artistic form of 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 that Philosophical Mormonism is not tied to the control mechanisms and demands of the Utah-based LDS Church, which are known as the Brighamite Mormons (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. 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 supernaturalist type Mormons say one must believe to be a "true" Mormon. For every supernatural version of Brighamite Mormonism is different from the previous versions, which changes about every 30 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 document The Book of Mormon, up to the book of Abraham and the ongoing philosophical culture of Mormonism -- which is a consistent, positive and optimistic, theology of the Body. As one consistent philosophy of biological-life affirmation and the veneration of the heroic virtues -- from the literary characters Nephi to Captain Moroni, to General Joseph Smith of the Nauvoo Legion and the courage of my Mormon Pioneer ancestors -- and the advocation of good and manly fathers and feminine mothers building healthy families and communities through what Don Bradley calls the restitution of Friendship and Denver Snuffer calls a Peoplehood. That is the consistent philosophical grounding of Mormonism and all else in my view is merely commentary.
So in my view, no supernatural sect of Mormonism or any dogmatic type of 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 my chosen philosophy of life in the same lifeward attitude held by my Mormon ancestors' and their devotion to the same philosophical ground of Mormonism. 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. 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 and I continue to align with, because it all affirms our shared biological reality; as that which energizes us with psychological vitality and great health through poetic metaphors and empowering stories of self overcoming and triumph.
Puritanical Brethrenism is Not Philosophical 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 mileu 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 Rober 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 Contrabutions 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 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 origional 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 devaluining 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 meaning of the mark upon the "skins" of the Lamanites, which I interpret as only a metaphor with the word skin being synonmous 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" is thus very likely a reference to skin tattoos or some other self-imposed marking (see Alma 3:4) and/or simply a metaphor for the dimmming (spiritually darkening) affect of those with whom the Light of God withdraws; compared to those in 3 Nephi 19: 25: who recieve 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 spirtual 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 for more detail.
The Core of My Intentions
Like many philosophers and historians, I think Nietzche was a genius in his prediction of the future before him (which we are experiencing today), which he described as our species and culture moving in one of two directions: either the trajectory toward the Superman (aka Overman) or the Last Man; he basically warned us of the cultural decline we are now headed in today which is the trajectory toward the Last Man. Nietzche's own philosophy and work was an attempt to help us today overcome nihilism and pessimistic philosohies and reverse the trajectory away from the degenerative Last Man, and toward what he described as the Great Health and for men to not reject the hero in their soul! I believe that Joseph Smith was attempting to do something similar but from a different angle.
As I argue on my site The Phases & Strategies of God, I believe the restored gospel of Joseph Smith is an attempt to restore "the hero in one's soul" and the restitution of healthy masculinity and feminity and the revitalization of the family unit.
I'm seeing today what Nietzche predicted would occur in our day; for example, rather than a life of nobility and action, the younger generation spends more time on their smartphones or screens than outdoors; and you have videos of an obese man, Nikocado Avocado, making money by basically earning advertisement revenue by destroying his health and risking his life. The crowd seems to want the Last Man, not the Superman, just as the crowd told Zarathustra. Our Western culture is moving in an unhealthy, emasculated, degenerative direction; so if I can add a seedbed of lifeward vitality to anyone, or everyone, who is interested, I feel like that is a good thing. Of course I write first for myself, and then I share what has empowered me with others.
Nietzche basically explained that all philosophizing, politics and religion-making is autobiographical and culturally bound, and I agree with him. I'm no different. I remember as a kid watching Rocky 4 and being inspired and motivated to start working out and getting in shape and becoming stronger. There were still many movies or TV shows back then that promoted masculine excellence, now that is more rare. There were also many movies or TV shows that modelled good and healthy fathers and mothers. When is the last time you saw a good father depicted in a movie or TV show (as of 2024)? It has become rarer. Are there any real masculine heroes in movies or on TV today compared to the past? It is because of this state of the culture in the West and the decline of the heroic ideal and the emasculation of males and devaluing of fathers, that I began to realize that in Origional Mormonism there is a rich metaphorical soil for planting one's highest hope and a potential seedbed of power through the Restoration's scriptural sails of higher ideals: capable of propelling one toward growing and cultivating the masculine hero in one's soul. In other words, after reading Nietszche, in particular his emphasis on being life affirming and rejecting ascetic monasticism, I realized that he made some good points and that the philosophy of Mormonism actually corrects for many of these problems in Augustine-Luther Christianity, through the new paradigm of the Smith-Pratt Christian paradigm. I began to see that most Christians themselves are uneasy with the body-despising monastic tradition and flat out ignore it and leave that to the celibate priests. When you add to this the problem of pacifism and how the Christian tradition has always been divided between those who argue Christianity does in fact argue that you need to be a doormat to bullies and be persecuted and pummeled and even die and never fight back and those who instead argue for some form of self-defense; and even today there are large movements that are pacifist and monastic, and on the other end of the spectrum Christianity basically evolved away from the New Testament ideal as found in the Gospels and instead went with Augustine who went so far as to approve of torture and with his mentality he justified war. This no doubt allowed the American Founding Fathers able to break away from England with the help of Christians due to this argument from just war theory. My point is that even Catholicism moved beyond radical pacifism.
Today I find that young men who are Christian are turning to a more masculine interpretation of Christianity, and there has been a rise of more muscular versions of Christianity like on the website The Art of Manliness and then there's a podcast the Church of Eternal Logos wherein an Eastern Orthodox gentleman argues for a more masculine warrior mentality when it comes to Christianity; and he himself is aggressive and assertive in debates and in dialogue with others. Then you have books like No More Christian Nice Guy. Yet when when dives into the actual content of the New Testament, setting aside The Book of Revelation where all the violence is done by a future coming Jesus, you do in fact find the texts emphasizing pacifism and martyrdom, as clearly pointed out by Paul Middleton and books like Unmanly Men. So the fact is most Christians today, especially as an American, are not truly living up to this radically pacifistic and monastic martyr-centric mentality in the New Testament, and they are instead reinterpreting the Scriptures and finding ways to make the texts practically useful in our modern times. The latest example is the new TV Show The Chosen where Jesus is portrayed more with a sense of humor and is playful and they add to Matthew 11:19 that Jesus came eating and drinking and dancing. This addition of "dancing" to the Scriptures, is of course not out of historical context because Jesus does attend a wedding festival; but nowhere is Jesus actually described as dancing which can be a very physical and sensual activity. This reminded me of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible where he reinterprets pluck out your eye to mean if the eye of someone doing wrong deeds causes you to stumble to remove that person's eye (as in remove their bad example from influencing you). Meanwhile, Joseph Smith's translation speaks of Jesus waxed strong as he grew up; and the Jesus of the restored gospel smiles in 3 Nephi, which is not found in the New Testament. In other words, I see Mormon Scripture as pseudopographic apocrypha, adding additional layers to the Christian experience just as the TV Show The Chosen does, or books like No More Christian Nice Guy, or Augustine justifying war for Christians or Christians who argue for self-defense and not allowing your family to be attacked, which most Christian men today would argue for, that you should defend your family; which is what the Book of Mormon argued for way back in 1830. So to be clear, I am not arguing that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of actual Nephites. I'm not even arguing that I know that Joseph Smith received actual revelation. I am arguing from the perspective of practicality and utility, and the fact is no Christian today is actually abiding by the actual content of the New Testament, except for extreme ascetic celibate monastic priests and monks, and those who actually seek to be martyred, which is no Christian I know personally. I am arguing that Christianity has always been in flux and evolving and emerging. So what I see is everyone is creating their own version of Christianity. I had one Mormon once tell me that on his mission he told an investigator that everyone's got their own Jesus, i.e. their own version of Jesus in their head that will often differ from another's version. I agree with this. Yes there are core Christian ideas, shared principles and values, and what Evangelicals call "the essentials." But beyond that there is a huge variation in what Christianity is for each person. So what Emergent Mormonism is for me is a personal philosophy where I have combined the best of the Smith-Pratt paradigm and Nietzsche's insights and combined them, and have found that the Smith-Pratt Paradigm resolves many of the issues that Nietzsche raises, and just as many other Christians have formed their own version of Christianity (like a Jesus who dances) or a Jesus who is more aggressive, or a Jesus who justifies war, I see no reason not to do the same in finding meaning and purpose and identity within my Mormon tradition; but not necessarily within the Institutional Brighamite Church of Utah, but the identity within the larger body of Restoration believers back to my pioneer ancestors who even practiced polygamy. In other words, I am identifying with the larger body of Mormons and not just one particular Mormon sect in Utah or anywhere else. I am identifying and seeking a sense of cultural belonging and identity and purpose, and a philosophical home and paradigm, within in particular the Smith-Pratt paradigm of which I consider to be Original Mormonism.
For more details on what I mean by finding meaning and purpose in the Smith-Pratt original Mormon worldview, see my document below:
Picturing An Emergent Mormon Perspective: My Thesis Presented in Visual Images, Bullet Points and Short Summaries. A Naturalistic Case for Mormonism as a Sociological Pathway toward Redeeming Fatherhood and Motherhood, Masculinity and Femininity, Family Stability and Societal Health through the LDS Ethos of Supercouples & a Zion People
Again, we literally have the culture moving towards the Last Man and original Mormonism instead offering a theo-philosophy toward a version of the ideal of the trajectory toward the Superman (aka Overman). I discuss the similarities between Nietzsche's philosophy and that of Joseph Smith in my blog series: Joseph and Nietzsche: The Rough Stone Rolling and the Dynamite Satyr.
In a world of Good and Evil, I choose the Good. I choose the healthy and generative and so I see as my enemy the mind virus of atheistic Neo Marxist anti-Life cult ideologies; and I see the restored gospel in its original form as a remedy to the degerative chaos and one way toward the restoration of order and lifeward vitality.
From the perspective of the energy of Life itself, Mormonism is a seedbed of symbolic potential energy for planting the hero in one's soul. For who can doubt the heroic vitality of Joseph Smith and his literary characters in The Book of Mormon. Joseph's life itself is a will to power, a drive to thrive, to grow and expand and produce a People. How is his life and what he produced not a testament to the human spirit and the heroic in one's soul and the power of the will to accomplish amazing things? Never mind what you think of Joseph Smith and whether or not you think he errored and made mistakes, can one not at least acknowledge that the man rose from obscurity to become the author of a complex novel, a religious founder and leader of thousands, a city mayor, general of an army, and presidential candidate! A man whose spiritual philosophy has inspired millions of people and has grown the state of Utah into a healthy and civil, vibrant state (especially compared to other more culturally degenerative U.S. states)?
Nietzsche argued for the importance of evaluating the personality, life attitude (or worldview), and biology of the philosopher, as it will affect his philosophy or religion-making. So I see within Joseph Smith's athletic body, his force of will and cheerful disposition, a lifeward energy that spills over upon the page of every scripture and sermon he produced. I do not find the same life-affirming vitality and joyfulness in Augustine, Calvin or Luther.
So this site is not for the atheistic nihilist types who want to wallow in a state of ever-present victimhood and resentment toward those at the height of the competence hierarchy; nor is it for the McConkey era Mormon who seeks to control others through rigid dogmatism.
Just as Nietzsche himself found enlightenment and empowerment in the Greeks and in particular the myth of Dionysus, I have found enlightenment and empowerment in the ethos of the restored gospel. One could argue that I have simply made up my own religion or spiritual path. But is that not what we are all doing? Even the atheist has their own version of atheism. In fact right now the Atheist Community is split between the more rational science-based atheists and the neo marxist "woke atheists," which has splintered into Atheist for Liberty and just about every other atheist community (that has become ideologically extreme far-Left as of 2024). Everyone is also practicing their own version of ex-mormonism, some have simply moved on from being "anti" and instead being truly post-Mormon and respecting their heritage; while others have transitioned to a New Order Mormon or Edgy Mormon and/or Stay LDS; while others have decided to make it their life's mission to spend several years of their life engaging in only cynical interpretations and a never ending hair splitting pedeantic deconstructions of Mormonism -- while offering no alternative Life Philosophy that is more culturally positive and generative -- while simultaneously turning around and joining a secular cult religion based in Neo Marxism.
So what I have done is instead of joining the Augustinians, Calvanists or Mega Church Evangelicals, nor the exmormon "woke atheists," I have gone my own way and attempted to find a way to honor and respect my Mormon Heritage and follow in the footsteps of Nietszche in affirming life; and achieving a state of happiness and vitality here and now, by utilizing Mormon Scripture as a form of stored potential energy (as a form of midrash) which I believe can empower one to grow towards higher states of being, civility, and flourishing. This of course puts me at odds with both the atheistic anti-mormons and the super orthodox Brighamite types. This means I don't fit into a neat little box of either Internet Mormon or Chapel Mormon, but instead I am my own kind of Independent Mormon.
Creating my Own Subjective Religion (or Positive Spirituality) around an Objective Standard & Universal Principles I have realized that yes I have really created my own religion or spiritual path. According to Shawn McCraney, who teaches Subjective Christianity and Christianity as a worldview form of Art, we are all generating our own version of religion or a worldview based on our own subjectivity. So I don't see it as arrogant to form one's own version of Mormonism that does not perfectly align with the mainstream LDS Church. I think all Mormons do this at least to some degree. After all, Brigham Young formed his own subjective religion which Orson Pratt did not align with and most Mormoms today do not align with. I am simply doing what works for me and makes me happy.
I do however have an objective standard which are the Scriptures, and I abide by Steven Covey's concept of the divine center and principle-centeredness, as well as the Design Laws of God by Tim Jennings, M.D. More than anything, I have tried to return to respecting my Mormon ancestors and my Heritage like a Jew respects his Jewish ancestry even if he is agnostic or not a literal believer in Judaism. In the process of forming this new subjective-religion (or spiritual philosophy) I call Emergent Mormonism, I have recieved criticism from all sides. I've always been rebellious to strict conformity so this is to be expected for me as a more independent thinker and less likely to follow the crowd. So as usual I find myself in a rebellious non-conforming state of being where I don't fit in with the ex-mormon atheists (who often want me to join their Neo Marxist cult); nor do I conform to the demands of the Orthodox Mormons who I believe misinterpret the Word of Wisdom as a commandment and constraint (which it clearly isn't), and believe that you must wear certain underwear to make God happy before you can enter the Brighamite temple(s). I have instead charted a middle path of believing in God but a God that affirms life and sensuality (as affirmed in LDS Scripture), and doesn't want to control your underwear habits, nor constrain your eating or drinking habits by command. In other words, I do not believe in a divine power that engages in excessive controllingness and prudery, but a God who is "more liberal in his views" (as Joseph told Nancy). As Joseph dictated in D&C 121:
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
There are so many people questioning and leaving the Utah-based Mormon Church and yet they are basically offered two worldview alternatives to the Brighamite sect, which is mostly either (1) Evangelical Christianity or (2) the nihilistic postmodern atheism of the Neo Marxist cult of the far-Left (with a dash of secular Buddhism through Eckhart Tolle) which is ascribed to by most exmormons (as of 2024). Well, why not a third option: Emergent Mormonism.
On Hermeneutics
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. Also note that how I see or interpret things is specifically through what I have coined the Smith-Pratt Paradigm.
So Who is this Site For?
I want to make it clear once again that if you are happy as an active true believing LDS member I am not here to try to convert you to my way of being Mormon. I'm also not here seeking to convert the exmormon or "inactive Mormon" or atheistic skeptic to any form of blind belief. I am writing specifically to those who have tried on the "atheist hat," or agnosticism, and went down the road of secularism and/or far-Leftism and metaphysical naturalism, and found it unsatisfying and existentially unfulfilling. My intended reader is those who have started to realized that having an identity as a Mormon again has some value, even if that means not fully belonging to the institutional Utah-based Brighamite Church. In other words, I'm speaking to fellow rational thinkers, the more science-minded, i.e. the more left-brained, "deep thinking," type of person who thought their way out of rigid forms of Mormonism at one time; yet after trying on other worldview philosophies and theologies and atheism, and everything in between, they found themselves existentially unfulfilled, culturally dispossessed and "un-tribed"; and are now seeking to re-tribe and reconnect to their Mormon Heritage and Identity on their own terms, in their own way. This is my intended audience. This site is not for the exmormon who is fulfilled and satisfied in their atheism and/or secularism or Far-Leftism. Saying it bluntly, If you want nothing to do with Mormonism ever again, I am not here to convert you back. Although, it might benefit you to at least learn another perspective. This site is also not intended to be read by the temple-attending orthodox Mormon, although such an LDS member may find this site useful nonetheless as at least a way of learning about different perspectives.
Let me further clarify that I do not see myself as an LDS apologist. As of this writing in 2024, most of the posts in this blog were written after I voluntarily resigned my membership from the Brighamite LDS Church around 2004. I do not wear LDS garments and don't attend Chapel, nor do I pay tithing to the LDS (Brighamite) Church.
I should also mention that I don't believe in a literal Devil, though I believe in Evil and the Devil is an excellent personification or avatar representing the advesaries to the Good in the form of any destructive energy in the form of the world's accusers, slanderers, and lying manipulars (all biblical descriptions of the-satan), as well as violent mobs, negative emotional contagion and what Walter Wink describes as the potential dark side of the Powers, etc. See my document here for more details. Yet despite my unorthodox views and lack of official membership in any Smith-Rigdon Restorationist denomination, I have grown to respect my LDS Heritage after years being stuck in an ex-Mormonism mindset. For more details see my blog post My Philosophical Journey Reconstructing My Emergent Mormon Worldview.
There's More than One Kind of Mormon
A major shift in my thinking regarding Mormonism began first on my LDS mission when I had regular interactions with non-Brighamite Mormons. There are in fact many Smith-Rigdon Restoration Branches. Also see the article Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon: Co-Founders of a Movement by Steven L. Shields. I read Patrick McKay's book Healing the Breach that argues for focusing more on the similarities between the Smith-Rigdon Restoration groups:
I then studied the many different Restoration groups, some illustrated in the visual below and discussed on the Gospel Tangents podcast:
The Fair LDS website even recommends the book Scattering Of The Saints: Schism Within Mormonism:
In Gospel Tangents podcast episode 730, at the one hour and fifty minute mark, John Hamer presents the following visual of all the many Smith-Rigdon Restoration movements and sects (as a Constellation of "Mormonism"):
There are even Remnant fellowships where Restoration believers don't attend a Church/Chapel but meet in each others' homes or elsewhere (like the first century Christians), as a newly reorganized Latter Day Saint Movement that rejects Brigham Young's apostolic succession. They have published their own version of LDS Scripture and in doing so they have retained the original Lectures on Faith which were the original doctrine of original Mormonism. They also chose to do what Joseph Smith himself intended to do, which is publish The Book of Mormon and New Testament together which they call Volume 2: The New Covenants. Their website containing this volume of LDS Scriptures states:
THE
NEW COVENANTS
RESTORATION EDITION
"It is not the will of the Lord to print any of the new Translation in [The Evening and Morning] Star; but when it is published, it will all go to the world together, in a volume by itself; and the New Testament and the Book of Mormon will be printed together."– Joseph Smith Jr. Letter, April 21, 1833.
Source: Letterbook 1, p. 35, The Joseph Smith Papers
I like how they published The Book of Mormon and New Testament together, as this supports my theory about the concept of God in the Old and New Testament, that I discuss on my site The Phases & Strategies of God; wherein I explain how I see the Book of Mormon is a kind of "fifth gospel." Thus I like the idea of publishing them together. The Remnant fellowship group also provide multiple versions of their Restoration Scriptures, including audio versions. I have absorbed much of their content and agree with a lot (though not all) of their views and conclusions. Yet I am not a member of their Movement. But I respect and agree with a lot of what they have done and are doing. I particularly like their version of the Scriptures and how they retained The Lectures on Faith as scripture because Joseph Smith himself, just before he died, edited and approved of the 1844 Edition of the D&C that retained The Lectures on Faith as church doctrine. Note that the Utah-based Brighamite Church removed The Lectures on Faith around 1920, thus removing the original doctrine of the Doctrine & Covenants. In other words, in the original Doctrine & Covenants the "doctrine" portion was The Lectures on Faith, so the Utah-based Leaders removed the original doctrine so they could replace it with ideas formulated by Brigham Young after Joseph died; and then James Talmage reformulated a new Godhead theology that eventually became the "official doctrine" by 1922. Around the same time (around 1920), Brighamite church leaders, in my opinion incorrectly interpreted the Word of Wisdom as a "commandment and constraint," when it clearly says it's not a commandment nor a constraint on Mormons. This means they removed a portion of Scripture called the doctrine that Joseph Smith approved of in 1844, and despite Joseph Smith himself not treating the Word of Wisdom as a command nor a constraint, later Brighamite Leaders turned strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom into a gateway to temple attendance; and thus employing servants (LDS leaders) blocking the entrance of a man-made gate to the presence of the Lord; when the Book of mormon makes it clear in 2 Nephi 9:41 that God "employeth no servant there" on the "straight course," and the actual "keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel [God]." I learned that most of the other Restoration groups did not heavily load (burden) the members of their group or sect in this way. So it would not be out of the ordinary in these other groups to hear something like, "Would you like to meet up for a cup of Coffee to discuss our perspective on the Smith-Rigdon Restoration?"
So I began to realize that even though I was no longer an official member of the Brighamite sect, that did not mean that I was any less "Mormon" than these other non-Brighamite Restoration groups. Once I stopped thinking of "Mormonism" only through the narrow lens of Brighamite Mormonism, and more as a larger set of core ideals and values that all the Smith-Rigdon Restoration groups believe in, I was better able to realize that I was still very much Mormon!
In fact I intend the information of this blog to be used by any of the Restoration Branches or even non-LDS that might find this blog useful. My own “brand” of Mormonism is not dogmatic nor supernaturally-focused, but is a more rational and philosophically oriented approach to experiencing the "restored gospel" as it was origionally expressed through Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt -- when open philosophical debate and discussions was welcomed -- as a non-creedal practical life stance and philosophical worldview. Whe Mormonism was more of a quasi-ethnicity and Peoplehood rather than thought of as being a member (a manner of "-ites") of a sect or Coporation.
After deconstructing my Brighamite LDS Faith, after about twenty years of further reading and study beyond typical anti-Mormonism propaganda, I developed a nuanced perspective on Mormonism. In simple terms, you could now call me any of the following:
- Smith-Rigdon Christian (as opposed to a Augustine-Luther Christian)
- Smith-Pratt Lens Restorationist
- Free Agent Mormon
- Independent Mormon
- Nondenominational Mormon
- Mormon 2.0
- Uncorrelated Mormon
- Mormon Possibilian
I would say I mostly identify as a Heritage Mormon in a way very similar to say how a secular agnostic Jew will often still identify as Jewish religiously and/or culturally, even if he or she doubts some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism. But it is more than just a cultural heritage to me as I believe in many uniquely LDS beliefs and ideas that are at odds with Atheism, Catholicism and Protestantism, etc. So upon reflection over the years as an exmormon, I came to realize that existentially speaking I am more "Mormon" than say an Atheist, Protestant, Catholic, or Buddhist or Jewish, etc. Thus, similar to Reform Judaism, I'm a Reform Mormon. I will explain what I mean below and throughout this blog.
This blog is basically for Independent Mormons on the periphery of the Brighamite sect (i.e. "on the inside of the edge" as Christian Kimball puts it in his book I recommend though I disagree with some of its content), or have found identity and belonging in another Smith-Rigdon Restoration Movement. So what this blog covers is basically my journey from being anti-Mormonism or an exmormon atheist to overtime intellectually developing into an Unorthodox Mormon Existentialist and a kind of Edgy Mormon by embracing my LDS Heritage on the periphery (outside the high demand structure of the Brighamite sect) yet very much considering myself a Mormon insider culturally speaking and in regards to my general beliefs and worldview. Studying Mormon Scripture and connecting with my Mormon Heritage, unfortunately did not motivate me to return to "full fellowship" in the Brighamite sect nor join another Smith-Rigdon Restoration group. Instead I developed an Unorthodox view of Mormonism that works for me. In these bullet points I shall summarize my basic beliefs:
- I think it is obvious to almost every objective observer outside the Brighamite tradition, that the Book of Mormon is not likely a historical record of an actual people but is a nineteenth century document with many Protestant ideas in it, which modern LDS scholars like Richard Bushman acknowledge. In his 2023 book The Annotated Book of Mormon, LDS scholar Grant Hardy addresses the issue of Book of Mormon historicity and makes a reasonable case that a Mormon can believe the Book of Mormon is inspired and yet not a literal history. Some of what Hardy covers has been covered by other LDS Thinkers, but he basically says it is reasonable to see the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha and/or an American Apocrypha; and how that does not mean the book cannot be seen as inspired scripture. For most objective Christian scholars do not believe that every document in the New Testament attributed to the apostle Paul is actually written by him. The Old Testament is also full of pseudepigrapha, like the Book of Daniel for example.
Grant Hardy writes on page 816-817:
Even if someone finds choosing to believe in ancient Nephites impossible, he or she can still choose to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. The book does not need to be an ancient text in order to be miraculous. …Under each scenario [of the Book of Mormon as inspired pseudepigrapha] it is possible that Smith was operating in good faith, sincerely believing that the incidents and words coming into his mind had a historical basis and were from outside his own consciousness, that he was tapping into something sacred as he was dictating the text. …
… There are historical difficulties with traditional beliefs about the Book of Mormon, some of which are solved by [an inspired pseudepigrapha] hypotheses even as they create new difficulties, yet theological conundrums remain either way.
This is how I see it, which I discuss in detail in my document The Gold Plates & Second Sight: A Theory of how Joseph Smith was a Sincere Perceiver through the Eyes of Faith. Thus, I think Joseph Smith was a sincere perceiver as a Christian and I believe he genuinely felt inspired -- through his belief in the gifts of the Spirit -- to dictate the contents of the Book of Mormon through his poetic artistry and creative genius. For in his mind I think he was only doing what Paul himself set the example of doing as a "spiritual master" of the gifts of the Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation by Christopher Mount). For Paul simply took authority unto himself by saying he did not get his ideas from the brother of Jesus or the other apostles (see Galatians 1:11-12, 15-20). So I think Joseph was simply interpreting his genuine inner-felt call to produce Scripture as a direct revelation from God, and he had that rare kind of self-confidence and sweeping vision driving him to take authority unto himself through an appeal to revelation, based on the example set by Paul himself. Just as Paul was motivated to rescue the Gentiles by practicing a form of religion-making called midrash, Joseph Smith felt inspired to deliver humanity from the rising tides of skepticism and nihilism. Even the nontheistic ex-mormon historian Dan Vogel does not see Joseph Smith as a con man or charlatan but what he calls a pious trickster or pious fraud, meaning he was a sincere believing Christian. I disagree with the negative connotations of Vogel's terminology and I instead prefer my term sincere perceiver, but I agree with much of Vogel's biographical theory regarding Joseph Smith. Having said all this, on my most non-skeptical days or moments of wanting to believe as a "Mormon 'possibilian" -- who will hold many different ideas in the idea space of my mind -- I will sometimes entertain the possibility that the Book of Mormon is describing actual native American peoples. Anything is "possible." Heck, modern physics theorizes that right now there is another me (or many me's) as a duplicate self (or selves) in another dimension living other lives as me yet not me. So I mean anything is possible.
- The Book of Mormon is basically a nondenominational text, there is even a Book of Mormon edition with the subtitle "nondenominational." I see the Book of Mormon as essentially a fifth gospel, an American gospel for our times with a specific core message of avoiding culturally deteriorating ideas and re-establishing healthy traditions that respect fatherhood and grow healthy families, which by extension is more likely to grow healthy cultures, cities, states and countries. I see the Book of Mormon as a standalone text, as essentially a Ascension text: a "how to guide" for becoming an enlightened (Light-filled) and luminous being (metaphorically and existentially), gaining direct access to the presence of God with no gatekeeper standing in the way through the merits of Christ alone. I explain all this in more detail in this blog series here.
- I see the Doctrine and Covenants the same way I see the apostle Paul's letters and epistles, as the possible Divine Realm working through fallible humans, with the D&C acting as an updated representation of the Pauline Ecclesia on the American frontier: as the flow of God's energy flowing imperfectly through the fallible nature of Joseph Smith (just as it did through Paul and others) as he seeks to maintain power and control of his growing American Ecclesia; and thus it is a text about social dynamics and the power of self-confidence and social synergy to form a culture and a People through the power of the spoken word.
- I believe that Smith's priesthood structure evolved over time with the ultimate aim of such priesthood structure being the organization of a patriarchal hierarchy to counteract the early stages of anti-family ideas in the culture; and as a way to change the consciousness of the early Mormons and remove from their psyche the body-despising dogma's of Augustine, Luther and Calvin, which I cover in this blog post and this blog series here. So that now that polygamy has ended after 1890, and the consciousness of most Mormons has been changed toward embracing a Fortunate Fall (rejecting Augustine's Original Sin dogma) and embracing a Father God with a body, parts and passions, the need for a priesthood hierarchy and Temple rituals is now defunct and unnecessary in the same sense that the rituals of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament temple are no longer necessary. So that I now see the current Brighamite Temple ritual and structure as a vestige of the past, a relic of a bygone era, the goal of which has already been accomplished. Thus, I now I see Brighamite temples as beautiful structures signifying to others a belief in God and united families, as a fraternal social club to maintain insider and outsider demarcations and a way to demonstrate one's loyalty to their tribe, and secure tithing funds; and a way to motivate commitment in marriage and thus maintain family unity which is ultimately a good thing. I don't see the temple ritual as necessary for one's exaltation, but nor is it a bad thing because the ritual helps maintain the growth and power of the Brighamite Mormon Church, which I see as an overall net good; but I don't see the higher priesthood and temple rituals as a necessary conduit to the highest Realm of the Celestial Kingdom. Instead, I believe in the Book of Mormon's Doctrine of Christ that basically teaches what ultimately all Mormon Scripture most consistently teaches, which is that through the grace of Christ and the baptism of fire one is literally transformed in a way similar to how metal in a furnace of fire becomes moldable. In other words, it is the beginning of a transformation into what Paul described as a pneumatic body (pronounced "noomatic"), i.e. a star-like celestial body, which I explain in more detail in the blog series here. What I found is that a careful reading of LDS Scripture shows that one does not merit their Celestial Glory but in fact one's Celestial glory is the glory of one's celestial body they receive through the seed/DNA of Christ recieved through faith and baptism and enduring hardships toward becoming fully luminous "children of Christ" (see here for more details).
- Finally, how I interpret Mormon Scripture has been influenced by the new Mormon apologetics (e.g. Terryl Givens and Grant Hardy) and a more metaphorical interpretation of scripture, as well as being influenced by Marcus Borg and other biblical scholars. In the process of being a Revived Mormon and developing what LDS patriarch Richard Bushman has called a Reconstructed Narrative, I have grown to appreciate my Mormon Heritage, but I also developed my own personal perspective without sacrificing my personal integrity nor checking my brain at the door of any church or sect.
Religion & Personality I've come to realize that a lot of the ways I think, behave and react to Brighamite Mormonism has a lot to do with my Myers Brigg personality type being an INFJ; or in terms of the Big 5 I am lower on Extraversion, high on Agreeableness, higher on Conscientiousness, in the middle on Openess, and higher in the category of Neuroticism (making me more prone to Scrupliosity). There is even a 2018 Fair-Mormon Conference talk titled Barriers to Belief: Mental Distress and Disaffection from the Church that addresses how certain people may have inevitable negative experiences in the Brighamite sect; a sect which Grant Hardy acknowledges on page 815 of his Annotated Book of Mormon, is "a relatively high-demand denomination ..." So my experience with Brighamite Mormonism was and is going to be different for me than other Mormons. I believe it is possible for a Mormon with a different personality and temperament and individualized experiences with their leaders, to spend their whole lives in the Brighamite Church and have almost no negative experiences with the leaders or with any internal issues relating to scrupliosity or toxic perfectionism. A good example of this is a former bishop I was listening to on a podcast who says he never experienced the feeling of guilt that many exmormons had told him that they felt being LDS; and he discussess the importance of healthy boundaries when dealing with "LDS culture," which he distinguishes from the actual restored gospel (see I'm Still a Mormon pocast, episode: Church Culture). Furthermore, someone who's less intellectually curious and less cerebral may never feel the need or desire to question the correlated message or dig deeper into controversial aspects of church history. I was simply different in this regard having an insatiable appetite and curiosity for learning.
I also think that for some Brighamite members, a high demand religion actually benefits them. This is not the case with me. For example, while I benefited from the training as an LDS missionary in developing a more extroverted persona -- and I utilized that fun and outgoing side of myself to become very popular and well liked in LDS young single adult social activities, and I am very grateful for those experiences -- my default is that of an introvert, though with ambivert tendencies meaning that I'm able to be social for a time but then I feel drained and need to be alone and have quiet. What this means is that the idea of taking on the more extroverted role of an active LDS member in a moderately high demand religion is very off putting to me; as well as not wanting to deal with non-responsive controller type personalities, which one will find in nearly all organized religions and secular organizations as well; yet in the Brighamite sect you have to deal with Bishop Roulette. So even if you have a cool Bishop and Stake President, soon you may have to deal with the next newly called LDS Leader who could be a non-responsive controller type who has the "power" to revoke your temple recommend based on things like your church attendance, diet and underwear habits, etc.; and can do other things to make you feel heavily yoked/loaded-down, harmfully shamed and ostracized from your social tribe (all based on their own subjective perceptions and interpretations).
So what I am trying to say is that while being a temple-Mormon (in the Brighamite sect) may not work for me personally, that doesn't mean that it can't work for others with a different personality, temperament and life experiences. In other words, I know of many Brighamite Mormons who thrive in its high demand religious system and they love it! Because I believe in Big Tent Restorationism, I can support them while also saying it does not work for me.
Big Tent Restorationism
The fact is there is no one version of Mormonism, which I've learned over the years learning about and dealing with the many Smith-Rigdon Restoration sects and movements. I have come to conclude that there are just different ways to believe in and experience Mormonism. Brigham Young's version of Mormonism was not what Orson Pratt believed in. When Joseph Smith distanced himself from Sidney Rigdon around 1840 and aligned more with Parley P. Pratt, they produced what I call the Smith-Pratt Paradigm, which I tend to align with the most. Yet those who followed Sidney Rigdon and not Brigham Young have just as much right to feel connected to their Latter Day Saint Heritage as I do (as I'm someone who grew up in the Brighamite sect).
It is easy to become egotistical and territorial when you grow up in the Brighamite tradition but the truth is the other Restoration traditions are just as true and valuable in their own cultural context. I see no reason not to respect their traditions and read their material and listen to their podcasts and theological presentations, which I do regularly as a way to expand my mind and learn more about my Latter Day Saint Heritage.
In the process of opening my mind and expanding myself beyond the territorial boundaries of the Brighamite sect, I've come to form many different beliefs and ideas that do not align with the Brighamite Church. Yet I will be the first one to say that the most successful and powerful Restoration sect is the Brighamite Church. It is also the Church of my childhood and youth and most of my LDS ancestors. So while I currently do not attend any church or sect, as an Independent Mormon, I still fully support and endorse the Brighamite Church. This is because I believe that different personalities and temperaments and different people's life experiences (that are different from my own) may thrive in the Brighamite Church. I know many of such persons personally. So I'm not here to say I found a better way or the only way, I'm just sharing my way; while focusing on Christ's Way as the way, the truth and the life, which Way I interpret less as an ecclesiastical structure and more of a mindset and lifestyle based on an ongoing transformation of character.
Placebos vs. Nocebos
I also came to realize that Mormonism is very much a form of psychical cultural energy that affects one's psyche and physiology and it can have a positive placebo affect or a negative nocebo affect depending on the person and one's ward dynamics and LDS Leaders. When certain versions of Mormonism does work for me as a philosophy of life and set of ideas (as a form of placebos) it is for me self-empowering. But when some culture-based LDS ideas are presented in what I consider the "wrong hands" it can be self-depleting and produce psychological nocebos and scrupulosity and phobias, unhealthy shame, perfectionism and religious trauma syndrome.
Mormon 2.0
As mentioned above, there is even a 2018 FairMormon Conference talk titled Barriers to Belief: Mental Distress and Disaffection from the Church that openly acknowledges that unhealthy feelings of shame, inadequacy, and perfectionism can and does emotionally distress many Brighamite LDS Members. Yet for other types of Mormons, they do not experience this at all for many reasons. For example, a convert to the LDS Church will not have the same cultural baggage embedded in their unconscious that a lifelong LDS member often does. A good example of this is the two very different Mormon experiences of two women on the The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City: where a Lisa Barlow describes herself as Mormon 2.0 (meaning basically that she does not try to be a "temple-Mormon") and because she converted to Mormonism and did not grow up in any perfectionistic subculture of Mormonism, for her LDS beliefs and practices are only empowering as she maintains solid boundaries. Whereas the woman named Heather Gay is depicted on the show as a former orthodox Mormon type who took McConkie era Mormonism very seriously and feels repressed and harmed by it. The first four seasons frequently present the two women's divergent perspectives of Mormonism. In Season 4, Episode 10, Lisa and Heather have a conversation where Heather, who grew up a strict McConkie era Mormon, says to Lisa in frustration and in reaction to Lisa's nuanced Mormon position, "The [Mormon] rules do exist for some people ..." Lisa responds saying that in Utah there is "culturally" a "weird set of rules" and that she does not raise her kids that way. During the conversation, Heather begins to realize that she needs to accept Lisa's way of being Mormon even though she had felt it was not fair that Lisa wears strapless dresses as a Mormon when she (Heather) would not have done that when she was a practicing Mcconkie Mormon. At one point Lisa says, "There's not one way to live any religion, and specifically ours" (see screenshot below). Lisa goes on to say that she believes it is "okay to have both," that is one can have both one's religious beliefs and one's private interpretation of how to live one's Faith.
When I was in Independence, Missouri as an LDS missionary, I would enter someone's home and they would pull out their own copy of The Book of Mormon and meanwhile they'd be brewing coffee in the background. Growing up I thought there was only one way to live the Mormon religion, but here was a "Mormon" (a Smith-Rigdon Restoration believer) who was not a Brighamite Mormon and so they did not follow the post-1920 Brighamite "rule" of no coffee. I was recently watching episodes of Ward Radio with a guest on the show named Josh Gehly who is a Bickertonite "Mormon" and in one of these episodes he jokes about how he distinguishes himself and his Faith from Brighamite Mormons by saying to people, "Let's get together for a coffee to discuss The Book of Mormon."
An Ongoing Restoration
Lisa is not the only one who thinks there are a lot of "weird cultural rules" in Brighamite Mormonism that is not authentic Mormonism. In chapter 5 of his book Restoration, LDS member Patrick Mason argues that we should excise a lot of the past baggage in Brighamite Mormonism, such as the tradition of using the same Scriptural interpretation methods found in Protestant Fundamentalism (i.e. strict scriptural literalism that ignores historical scholarship). There are other Mormons as well that reject Protestant Fundamentalism, for example in a video on Saints Unscripted titled Let's Talk About the Flood, Ben Spackman explores the idea that even history and science is a form of "mythology" and that the story of the flood is best viewed as a moral mythos. Also see his presentation, Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis. Thus, despite many LDS members being stuck in the past's cultural trend of Protestant Fundamentalism, many other LDS members hold more non-literal interpretations of LDS Scripture. Also see these articles and videos by Ben Spackman:
Now for many in the home ward I grew up in, Spackman can't be a Mormon and hold these views that the Noah and Flood story is more of an allegory, and yet he is in fact Mormon and his scholarship is presented at the FAIR LDS apologetic website.
Patrick Mason also points out in his book Restoration, that in the early LDS Church the Word of Wisdom was originally optional, a sister could be called to give a blessing of healing, and there was no Correlation Committee. For example, see:
- Saturday’s Warriors: How Mormons went from beard-wearing radicals to clean-cut conformists by Mathew Bowman.
Mason explains that it was not until the 1980s that there began the cultural trend of a hyper-focusing on getting a testimony of specifically the Book of Mormon. He says "The most recognizable features of contemporary [LDS] religious life dates not to the Restoration's first century but to its second." He asks if we (LDS) really have to dress at church like we are going to work for IBM in the 1950s? He asks questions about the music and art and stating, "Jesus was not Scandinavian." The point Mason is making is that a lot of what passes for Mormonism todayis not actually original Mormonism; and like Lisa saying there are some weird cultural rules she ignores, Mason is similarly saying that a lot of what is practiced and believed in today is a cultural trend and not authentic Mormonism.
Growing up LDS in the 1980s and 90s, I remember the cultural trend was to basically mock the concept of "saved by grace" (as taught by Protestants), even though the Book of Mormon clearly teaches being saved by grace through the merits of Christ alone. McConkie discouraged having a personal relationship with Christ, but now that is commonplace in Brighamite Mormonism. Growing up I frequently saw pamphlets at the LDS Church that used the nickname "Mormon" proudly. When the LDS prophet Hinkley was alive he countered Nelson's view, by arguing at LDS General Conference that we should embrace the nickname Mormon and we should interpret the word Mormon as meaning "More good." As a missionary I proudly pasted this banner (from a 1855–1857 Mormon Newspaper titled The Mormon by John Taylor) in my missionary journal. Today however, many LDS member are now afraid to use the word Mormon, which I see as just another shifting cultural trend that will change in the future.
On my LDS mission I read The Discourses of Brigham Young and what stood out to me was that Brigham Young would unapologetically speak of the Gods (plural), but today in LDS culture the cultural trend is to sound more Protestant by only using the singular term God. This despite the fact that the Proclamation on the Family refers to "heavenly parents" which would technically be two Gods per D&C 132, and the LDS Book of Abraham chapters 4-5 speak very clearly about the Gods (plural). So I realized there is no one way to live one's religion, as what it means to be Mormon to one generation changes for the next. So what matters is the core principles and values in The Standard Works, not the shifting sands of cultural trends and subjective shifts in doctrine and policy.
Learning about all these subjective opinions and ways to be Mormon, from Lisa Barlow to McConkie to the non-Brighamite "Mormons" in Missouri, I began to realize that in reality I had as much of a right to experience Mormonism on my own terms as they all do. After all, Joseph's own wife Emma was her own kind of "Mormon" and she did not believe in Brighamite Mormonism; while Orson Pratt's Mormonism was not the same as Brigham Young's Mormonism! As mentioned above, I served part of my LDS mission in Independence, Missouri, so I met a lot of "Mormons" who drank coffee and did not wear "garments," and did things differently than how I was taught you had to behave to be considered a "good Mormon." So who get's to say what it means to be "Mormon" or "LDS" anyway? Current Brighamite LDS Leaders are constantly contradicting previous Brighamite Leaders, again the latest example is President Nelson's issue with the nickname "Mormon" which contradicts Gordon Hinkley's embracing of the nickname Mormon (as people on YouTube are now splicing together the talks by both leaders giving contradictory views on the nickname Mormon). Then you have an Area Seventy, Richard N Holzapfel, in August 2021 condemning the harm of Protestant-style Purity Culture (that infiltrated LDS Culture in the 1900s) and Richard N. Holzapfel rejecting the book The Miracle of Forgiveness, telling his audience to basically disregard "dead prophets" and get behind the newest prophets. So who owns the meaning of the restored gospel and how to interpret LDS Scripture? The Book of Mormon text itself is not copyrighted and it is in the public domain, there is even a Nondenominational Book of Mormon edition.
I began to realize that I can do the same thing as all the other Smith-Rigdon Restoration branches and movements have done but with my own unique view of things through what I call the Emergent Mormon Perspective. In doing so, I have felt a renewed vigor for life and existential fulfillment while bonding with my Mormon ancestors through a shared worldview and shared use of Scripture: as I like to read the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants that contains The Lectures on Faith: which were the official Doctrine portion and the Revelations as the Covenant portion. So I have formed an Emergent Mormon identity by uniting around a shared core set of principles and values toward ideally growing into a Zion People, which vision I share with my LDS ancestors; and thus I feel connected to them through the spans of time. By learning about my ancestors Latter Day Saint history and reading the same Scriptures they did, I have gained a sense of existential meaning and interconnected cultural identity within a grand tradition spanning two centuries. In other words, I feel a sense of interconnectedness with my ancestors as if part of a quasi-ethnicity, with a sense of tribal unity being part of something larger than myself, part of a shared culture, being interlinked to a great People.
Reading the same words my LDS ancestors' read in the same early editions of LDS Scripture causes me to feel united with them, those whose very lives and DNA are within me; as I continue to share their core beliefs and ideals that has been passed on from generation to generation, producing a kinder, more thoughtful, win-win and we-centered culture -- that seeks to esteem one's Christian brother or sister as themselves and mourn with those who mourn -- within a cultural ethos that transcends dogmatic creeds of any kind, as it is actually more about Peoplehood.
The Many Faces of Religion
I believe that one's experience with LDS Christianity has a lot to do with the type of "faces" one mostly encounters; and/or the type of personalities and overall "vibe" one experiences in LDS culture and through which one learns what it means to be Mormon. I discuss this in more detail in my documents below:
If one reads these three documents above, and just looks at the faces and the physiological energy of the Christian and LDS authors presented in those documents, that will go a long way to understanding the approach I am taking as an Independent Mormon with an Emergent Perspective. The last document in the bullet points above, covers how personality plays a big part in the various versions of LDS Christianity. When this is combined with my thesis in my document The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body, one will see that I'm less interested in Orthodoxy or Dogma and more interested in how philosophical Ideas affect one's psyche and physiology; and thus I focus on what is empowering to the individual and is healthy for the cultural growth of all the types of Mormons as a People. Because of my point of view that Mormonism is a poetic art form -- and is experienced differently and presented differently through different personality styles and individual psyches and physiologies -- I see no reason to let just one personality type or Restorationist tradition or sect tell me what it means to be "Mormon"; when the controlling dogmatic types in the various Mormon sects are often contradicting LDS Scripture itself.
I like to use Dr. Paul Dobransky's MindOS diagrams for conceptualizing human psychology and social dynamics. You can see visual animated diagrams of Dobransky's concept of healthy boundaries on his YouTube site. So I put together my own diagram using the concept of a healthy personal boundary "with doors" in order to conceptualize how I navigate being an Emergent Mormon and dealing with the other Difficult Personalities in Mormonism (as well as in secular venues):
I guess I have a rebellious side to myself like Joseph Smith himself, in that I don't like being pushed around or told what to believe or do, without being properly persuaded to do so by those with noble intentions. So I'm no longer interested in McConkie type Mormons telling me what it means to be Mormon when in the past they confidently pushed false dogma; nor am I interested in what many (not all) exmormon atheists tell me what it means to be Mormon: as many of them (again not all of them) have turned around and left traditional religion to join a quasi-religion in the form of far-Leftism and becoming ideologically possessed and extremely rude and mean-spirited on Forums. I am also not willing to let Evangelical Christians (with their Augustinian-Calvinist bias within their anti-Mormonism literature) tell me what Mormonism is and is not; when their Evangelical spokespersons like Sandra Tanner -- who was a leading voice of anti-Mormonism -- held views more harmful than anything in Brighamite Mormonism in my opinion. Just listen to exmormon Shawn McCraney critique Sandra Tanner's seemingly Calvinist views on Nov. 7, 2017 on Episode 2 - Sandra Tanner - HOTM 2.0, which he did after she turned on him and threw him under the bus for holding views contrary to Protestant/Evangelical "Orthodoxy." After experiencing a lot of hate for his "thoughtcrimes" from other Protestant-Christians, Shawn went on to give a renewed assessment of Mormonism.
The problem I see with Sandra Tanner is that instead of appreciating the LDS Church and Culture more as an overall force for societal good and a way of lowering crime through it's family-oriented principles and values, Sandra Tanner only focused on the negative due to her theological differences with Mormonism; and eventually she ended up selling her home and anti-Mormon bookstore due to crime in her neighborhood. Isn't that ironic. Why should I only listen to Sandra Tanner after seeing how her cohorts treated Shawn McCraney?
So I simply disagree with all of them, both the dogmatic LDS McConkie types and the Anti-Mormons. My position now is that I see no reason why I should throw my Mormon pioneer ancestors under the bus and spit in the face of my LDS Heritage and quasi-ethnicity. Again, after spending years analyzing all the philosophies and theologies of the world, I've simply come to conclude that I'm definitely a Heritage Mormon, which I discuss in this blog series.
After absorbing the many different Christian and Mormon authors in the documents linked in the bullet points above, I began to ask myself, why should books like The Miracle of Forgiveness dictate to me what it means to be LDS when there are in fact many different ways to be Mormon and many different Mormon sects and theologies. Note that the Brighamite Church no longer publishes nor endorses The Miracle of Forgiveness but when I was a kid it was treated as if it was official Church doctrine; which is just one more example of why I don't pay attention to the current trends regarding what is considered so-called "official church doctrine" in any of the Mormon sects. As I examined Mormon Scripture on my own terms through an Emergent Mormon Perspectiv. For example, I've begun forming a document on My Emergent Reading of the Book of Mormon. Re-reading LDS Scripture, I came away feeling connected to my Mormon ancestors and realizing that there is a rich tapestry of poetic meaning-making artistry and good ethical guidance within Restoration Scripture.
So I have realized that the types of Mormons that I disagreed with the most growing up LDS were just filtering the Mormon experience through their own biology and personality and subjective biases, and the current traditions and trends. Knowing this I have been able to separate their subjective views from my own as I chart my own course.
The Scientific Evidence that Moderate Religiousness is Good for Your Health
The fact is that in America those with religious beliefs and practices tend to be healthier and happier in general. After reading An Atheist Defends Religion by Bruce Sheiman, I kind of felt stupid to be honest for I realized that my journey into nihilistic atheism was doing me no good psychologically and physiologically. I then read What Positive Psychologists and Mormons Can Learn From Each Other (2013) by Elisa Hunter and Is the Church Good? - Fruits of the Gospel by Jacob Hansen, and came to realize that the LDS Church is a net good in the world and can work for many people (even if LDS Orthodoxy does not work for me as an Independent Mormon). But these books and articles by Sheiman, Hunter, and Hansen (and many others I read saying similar things) led me to realize that we probably evolved to be "religious" or "spiritual" in some way. My research led me to realize that many honest atheists actually argue that we are "homoreligious," meaning that as a species we are religious or at least quasi-religious by nature. I discuss this in more detail in my blog posts below:
Here are some short video clips (and longer ones) of atheists and other thinkers arguing that most religions are good for your health and good for society:
- Exploring the science behind religion’s benefit on ABC News: Link to author David Desteno discussing his new book “How God Works: Examining the Science Behind the Benefits of Religion.”
Given the information in the videos and books discussed above I started to ask myself:
"If we evolved to be religious or spiritual in some way, why I have I been trying so hard to go against my evolved nature as a devout atheist or agnostic?"
"Why should I let them (the most dogmatically religious) have all the fun and benefits of religion?"
"Why should I let Augustine and Calvin or McConkie tell me what it means to be Christian or Mormon rather than Marcus Borg or Rob Bell or Terryl Givens?"
These questions made me realize that even Nietzsche realized the powerful potency of religious ideas and language, and he freely utilized a form of naturalistic "spirituality" to form his Philosophy of Life in his attempt to overcome nihilism. As I wrote in my blog post above: Even the famous atheist Fredrick Nietzsche was "spiritual" (as a bio of him by Sue Prideaux argues). For example, as referenced in her book, in In Human All Too Human, section 251 -- The Future of Science, he wrote, "... a higher culture must give man a double brain, two brain chambers, so to speak, one to feel science and the other to feel non-science, which can lie side by side, without confusion, divisible, exclusive; this is a necessity of health." By non-science, he meant the "spiritual" side to ourselves. Nietzsche even told a friend that he wrote his own holy book with his Thus Spoke Zarathustra. So after reading the works of Nietzsche and him helping me move from passive-nihilism to an active-nihilism, I then re-examined my LDS Faith and realized that Joseph Smith and Nietzsche had a lot in common in regards to their agendas against nihilism and social degeneration. I then realized that I was even more empowered existentially with a will to meaning through my Emergent Mormon Perspective, and that original Mormonism is a good antidote to nihilistic chaos and social degeneration.
So I began to ask myself, why should I let others tell me what it means to be Mormon? When I was a true believing Orthodox LDS member it was always uniquely my version of Mormonism anyway that I was believing in and practicing. I always selected certain passages of Scripture or I elevated certain ideas and concepts over others that resonated with me more than others. I realize now that all Mormons do this. So why should the McConkie types get to tell me what it means to be "Mormon" when I can derive my own value and existential vitality from LDS Scripture and History on my own terms in my own way, which I explore in my Emergent Mormon Documents.
After stepping back and reflecting on my life in Latter Day Saint Restorationist culture and outside of Restoration culture, I began to realize that I had many good memories inside LDS culture based on the type of person, character, and personality of the LDS member or member of a Restoration branch or movement that I was most often encountering and interacting with the most, and was most influenced by. So that when Mormonism was working for me it was because my experience of the branches on the True Vine (the "Body of Christ" as the apostle Paul puts it) was more "fun" (or joyful) and uplifting, rather than a drag on me. After leaving the LDS Church as a nontheistic secularist for over a decade, over time I experienced those same other "drainer" personalities that were a drag on me in secular groups outside the LDS Church. So I realized that there are cool and uplifting ("edifying") people and personality styles and then there are those who are a drag on your well-being and lower your self-confidence. I learned that you will find these two different "energy" types inside and outside of Mormon culture. Once I realized that it was not my Mormon Heritage so much as certain cultural trends, false traditions and policies begun by certain difficult and "controlling" type personalities, that I then realized that overall I am deep down still very much a Mormon. I also realized that I like most Mormons. Simply put, I have grown to realize that Mormons are my People, as a quasi-ethnicity and cultural identity, as my "tribe," and that at the very least I am a Heritage-Mormon.
The Different Types of Mormons
The fact is there are many types of Mormons, which I learned serving half my mission in Independence Missouri; where I met Mormons who drink coffee and consider the Book of Mormon inspired scripture but Brigham Young was not a prophet and their Doctrine and Covenants had revelations from Joseph Smith's son.
Even in the Brighamite sect there are different personality types and types of Mormons. Even devout LDS acknowledge this, see The 3 Types Of Mormons by Greg Trimble. A recent reality TV Show has a Lisa Barlow describing herself as a Mormon 2.0. A relative of Spencer W. Kimball named Christian Kimball calls himself a Mormon on the inside of the edge. John Dehlin's podcast originally presented a way to be basically a humanistic New Order Mormon, which he personally practiced and advocated for years until he openly opposed the Brighamite Church leadership over social issues and now he is full blown anti-Mormonism (as of 2023). But before that, John Dehlin corresponded with me once privately around 2005 (when I was in my atheistic ex-mormon phase) and tried to get me to go back to the LDS Church and practice Mormonism as a New Order Mormon (N.O.M.) and treat it like a atheistic Jew treats Judaism as part of his ethnic culture but not necessarily literally true. This worked for John for years, until it didn't. Ironically, John Dehlin and I have simply switched places, as he has moved from nuanced believer to staunch critic and I have moved from critic to a nuanced believer through what I call the Emergent Mormon Perspective. So this blog is basically for N.O.M.s, the Mormon 2.0, those on "the inside of the edge," and those who wish to stay LDS on their own terms, in their own way.
This site is also for those who draw inspiration from Mormon Scripture and want to stay connected to their Mormon ancestors and heritage, but have no interest in attending chapel regularly out of a sense of duty, but go when they feel like it and/or participate on the periphery; and choose to make friends with LDS who judge them on the content of their character not the color of their underwear.
This is probably not a site for true believing Mormons, that is the stalwart McConkie-style types, the always garment wearing, tithe paying on their gross income (out of fear and duty, not voluntarily out of charity or a sense of giving back); and who basically "worship" the Brethren by not just sustaining them but literally treating them as the collective voices of the Lord when they publish a book or speak from the pulpit; and who often act starstruck rather than merely seeing them as fallible humans doing their best and as mostly good men yet flawed men nonetheless; as usually businessmen with good managerial skills, yet who are often just giving their opinion and are sometimes wrong. Who knows, while I continue to really enjoy and value Mormon Scripture and LDS History and my ancestral heritage and cultural identity, and always find myself listening to Ward Radio and Gospel Tangents (as of 2023) and other Mormon themed podcasts -- and reading books and websites on Mormonism as a hobby I continue to enjoy -- maybe one day I'll have one of those indescribable "conversion experiences" and return to full fellowship and get rebaptized (since I voluntarily resigned around 2004). But as of right now, this website is for those who are like me, Unorthodox Mormons who respect and admire their LDS Heritage; who are unsatisfied with secular atheism or any other theology or Life Philosophy, and wish to respect their Mormon Heritage and feel connected to the LDS Chain of Belonging without checking their brain at the door of any church; and who choose to practice Mormonism on their own terms, in their own way; even if that means in the privacy of their own home without any ecclesiastical interference. In short, I'm a big fan of defining the word "church" as it originally meant which is any two or three Christians meeting together, anywhere. As the word church in Greek is ecclesia, meaning to assemble or congregate; so that I see no reason why "the church" can't be someone meeting together with other Mormon friends in a living room, or attending a Brighamite Mormon social (even if you resigned your Brighamite membership like I did around 2004) or even those who are experimenting with different forms of worship like the Remnant Fellowships. In other words, if as Jacob Hansen put it once in one of his podcasts, that "Zion is emergent" (and not a top-down forced and controlled phenomenon), and if the spirit (nooma) really is a fluid energy (as parley P. Pratt explained) that is as everywhere present as the wind or air (as Jesus told Nicodemus), and a time would come when people did not only worship in one location (like Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well), then I see no reason why LDS Christianity cannot blossom like the rose in multiple gardens and not just within the institutional Brighamite sect. Although I fully acknowledge and respect the mighty power and success of the Brighamite sect and I fully honor my Brighamite Mormon ancestors who followed Brigham Young across the plains to settle Utah, and gave me multiple social opportunities to feel connected to a tribe and grow spiritually in Southern California.
The Practical Power of Restorationist "Spirituality"
Bertrand Russell basically said that an honest atheism is the embracing of a mental state of unyielding despair; while Lisa Miller explains how spirituality protects your brain from despair.
Just as others have pointed out that there are many ways to mormon, I am not sharing any way of "mormoning" that I would consider disempowering and heavy yoke burdening, putting you in a shame cycle of perfectionism and worthiness-chasing; fostering feelings of insecurity and chronic inadequacy. I am instead presenting something completely different from those vitality-depleting mormonisms; for I oppose that systematizing rigidity and controlling institutionalism, which is unfortunately often found in the subcultures and leadership of the Brighamite sect. Though to be fair, there is a growing number of LDS leaders and members who are seeking to correct past dogmatism with future trickle up revelation as they call it.
So for those who are resistant to dogmatic religions, I will say that is absolutely not what I am sharing with the reader of this blog. As I have mentioned elsewhere, my single most consistent criteria for judging a set of ideas or a spiritual practice, is whether or not it is empowering or disempowering. So far, what I have philosophically developed is empowering to me and so in a spirit of generosity and the bestowing virtue, I'm sharing it because others might also find it empowering.
In brief, the emergent mormon perspective is basically a form of positive thinking, stress-reduction meditation, empowering visualization; a nooma-cultivating, tribal ethos, and meaning-making form of logotherapy.
I remember practicing a form of visualization I learned once where I would imagine a bright ball of light glowing inside my body, and healing me of all stress and inner turmoil. I have also used NLP visualization techniques to reduce stress or empower my mind. I have done the same thing in my spiritual practice by visualizing the divine pneuma, pronounced nooma, and so I will use the word nooma from here on out like Rob Bell does in his Nooma Videos. For example, the LDS Lectures on Faith #1, is basically spiritual positive thinking. Once I began to realize that the original LDS Gospel was the Glad Tidings of your noominous glorification, not the introduction of a shame cycle; but a form of spiritual empowerment in that Parley Pratt for example speaks of the sacred spirit of God (nooma) as a divine fluid energy that is empowering and enlightening. So I began to realize that this was not only empowering if metaphysically true but it was also a powerful visualization technique of seeing the nooma emanating from the Father of Lights (Lec. 2:2) and the Light of Christ (D&C 93:2) as a luminous energy: literally poured into people as fiery liquid energy, as refined spirit matter, the refiner's fire (see Malachi 3:2-3; Mosiah 27:24–26 and 2 Nephi 31); which can be visualized as a divine liquid poured into a person that refines them as a kind of spiritual process of growing in antifragility, wherein this divine nooma is a gracious gift, as Christ says his "grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves ... and have faith [trust] in me [Christ], then will I make weak things become strong unto them” (Ether 12:27).
This noomatic empowerment is not selfish however, but we-centered. The goal is producing souls as brimming cups of mutual affection through mutually shared, noomatic infused friendships and romantic unions; toward happier emotions within the ideal friendship circle of the Zion Ideal. Ideally producing a nooma filled society of friends who ideally prosper in wealth and joyful abundance within a more fair-minded equitable Society.
Part of the noomatic power therefore is not just its antifragile power through the Strength of the Lord, but also the fruit of the nooma is agape-care, joy, peacemaking, patience, and self-mastery.
So I like to visualize the fluid nooma as a form of breathing meditation while visualizing my in and out breath as nooma inflowing and outflowing as liquid light. The idea here is that our emotional state can be measured by our breath and mental attitude, as we either breathe in light and speak out light or we take in darkness and exude darkened moods; which I tried to illustrate below by contrasting two life philosophies and communication styles:
I go into much greater on this concept of the noominous liquid energy of God and the process of true deification (or theosis) in LDS Scripture, and the true Doctrine of Grace, in this blog series.
Empowering versus Disempowering
Again, a key insight I had was that there are types of Mormons and Mormonisms (ways of Mormoning), as their are types of personality and sects of Christianity. So I drew up the following illustration that summarizes how I see things. My image was cut short while editing it but the words on the left read "From the place of play-acting a religious role, wearing a mask" (conveying Jesus' core criticism of the religious 'fakers' in his day) and the words on the right are "Fun Energy (Joy)" and then "Shining with Positive Energy." I meant to convey that if one begins by conceptualizing God as an ogre and one has a Doom & Gloom worldview framework, then LDS Christianity will be a drag. If one interprets LDS theo-philosophy through the lens or view of say theo-logicals (a term from Phyllis Tickle and her diagram which I dicuss in my document here, and is dicussed at this site) and the approach of manipulative-controllers type personalities ("unrighteous domionists" I like to call them) then one will feel drained. But if one has a different, smiling God-concept, and focuses on LDS personalities that practice "righteous dominion," then they will not end up Drained but Empowered.
Read Lectures on Faith 5 and 7, D&C 88 and D&C 76, and Joseph's King Follet Sermon, for more on the aim of glorifying Mormons as bodies of radiant power. The box on the left below represents in my view the wrong way to experience Mormonism, feeling boxed in and unrighteously controlled and turning inward feeling mostly shame and feelings of inadequacy. The image of the circle and sun on the right below is based on the MindOS personal-boundary (discussed by Dr. Paul here and here) representing one's soul as a radiant glowing star: as a symbolic representation of the ideal goal of origional Mormonism which is to glorify and empower Mormons, not drain them:
Again, I also like to use Dr. Paul Dobransky's MindOS diagrams, see visual animated diagrams of healthy boundaries on his YouTube site. So I put together my own diagram using the concept of a healthy personal boundary with doors:
So this is my criteria of assessing any LDS tradition or idea or attitude: is it a drag and draining me? Or is it empowering and uplifting me and us (as a People), being aimed toward our co-glory as joint heirs with the Lord of glory? This helps me weed out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Mormon ideas and teachings from various so-called "Mormon authorities," which is very often not inspired revelation but the traditions of men.
Restorationist Spirituality & Self Mastery for Healthier Relationships
The thing about Restorationist Spirituality, as a positive visualization and practical philosophy, is that even if one were to look at it from a selfish perspective, one comes away realizing that when they are better able to regulate their emotions and physiological states, they are better able to hone their power and express themselves in the most healthy and efficient manner; rather than wasting energy in pedantic squabbles or making enemies unnecessarily, they are better able to win friends and influence people. So that as Jordan Peterson talks about, this spiritual philosophy has a natural positive "feedback loop" as energy begets energy. So if you are more principle-centered (as Stephen Covey puts it) and reducing unhealthy hurry as John Comer talks about, and more centered in your breath as a meditation on the divine nooma, as Rob Bell covers, then you will be more able to be at your best: at your most stress-reduced and strong state of being; and thus better able to have a shining smiling countenance of joy and brightness by embodying the illuminating power of nooma.
This is where the Record of the Nephites becomes a practical cautionary tale about the Nephites, who thought they were righteous and yet began to be prejudicial. They became prideful and selfish. They stopped focusing on the ability of the fluid nooma to transform someone's countenance, so that they shine like bright shining fruit peelings like the bright fruit on the tree in Lehi's dream. The Lamanites in turn are representative of a culture that degenerates due to unhealthy anger and what Nietzsche calls resentment; as they too lack the energy of the sacred nooma and get caught in hate spirals and revenge seeking, and murderous contentions and rage in a cycle of violence; which led Gandhi to say an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. So that if one is constantly causing hateful contention in their own personal life they will naturally produce a negative feedback loop because hurt people, hurt people.
So visualizing the nooma as healing energy and Christ as the Healer, one can potentially be better able heal the hurt and traumas and move away from what Tolle calls having a heavy and dense pain body, and Nietzsche calls "the spirit of gravity" (and Paul calls Sin taking you over in Romans 7), and be better able to move toward being more in the present moment: in tune with each breath you breathe and feeling less tense and stressed, thus better able to be more joyful: as Rob Bell explains, the very name of God in Hebrew can be thought of as the act of breathing, right here, right now.
So as I've discussed briefly herein, I am presenting a practical spiritual philosophy that can reduce stress and anger, hate and anxiety; and ideally improve well-being and confidence; which will, like a cup brimming over, ideally cause one to overflow with more feelings of happiness and joyful laughter.
The Modelling of a Smiling and Laughing Christ
The uniqueness of the Smith-Pratt Restoration philosophy is that it provides these additional symbols and metaphors in the Record of the Nephites, the most important being the imagery of a smiling Christ with a shining countenance of joy. This is a radical additional testament to the New Testament image of Christ, in a different context apart from the first century context of the Jews under Roman oppression; with instead Christ visiting the Americas as a more American gospel, which is what one would expect of the Divine expressed through differing cultural contexts; which I explore in my website the Phases and Strategies of God.
Whether or not these metaphors and stories are literally true history or not, is not what is most important to me because I examine the stories through the interpretive lens of the historical-metaphorical lens taught by Marcus Borg and the Hero's Journey taught by Joseph Campbell.
Body Affirming Christianity
I made the following illustration to visually represent what I see as an Affirmation of the Body within Original Mormon Scripture & Doctrine:
I discuss the visual above in my document here. The Latter Day Saint (LDS Christian) or the Smithian Restoration Movement, despite it's flaws, is a better option for me personally than Catholicism, Calvinism, or Methodism, etc.; because the versions of Christianities I have explored are all too often at their core body-despising theological philosophies based of Augustine's anti-body mentality. In short, they are almost always body-despising theologies; while in contrast the Smith-Pratt Restoration Movement is instead a body affirming theology that is consistently Life-centered and body-affirming; so much so that the LDS Restoration could be aptly called Body Affirming Christianity. I believe that Joseph Smith, like Nietzsche, was responding to the growing nihilism of his day in his composing the Book of Mormon; yet Smith was also restoring the more body affirming theology of the Hebrew Bible, and thus the Smith-Pratt Paradigm affirms the bodily instincts and lifeward drives to thrive through an empowering theology of the body: that functions not just as a theology but also as a practical Life Philosophy or Lifestance that is based not in despising the body and avoiding life to say meditate on a hilltop all day; but to instead engage the physical world as all physical matter is spirit matter and so to live more fully, more bodily, becomes a "spiritual" endeavor; for God himself is a personal being with a body and parts and passions. So that to affirm the body is to affirm God. I explore this in greater detail in my document: The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body.
I am aware of no other version of Christianity that is as body affirming, or as positive about American life, of democracy, freedom, families (with goodly fathers and mothers), and living more fully and courageously and uprightly as the Smith-Pratt Restoration Movement.
Emergent Mormonism as an Empowering Life Philosophy:
In essence I am presenting Emergent Mormonism as a Life Philosophy. I became aware of the concept of having a life philosophy after reading a book on Stoicism which argued for the importance of having a life philosophy. As well as coming across books like How to Be a Stoic and How to Be an Epicurean. To be a modern Stoic obviously does not mean hanging out around the Stoa/Porches in Rome where early Stoics gathered. And being an Epicurean does not mean hanging out with Epicurus who is no longer alive. So too, an Emergent Mormon need not be an active member of the Mormon Church (or any Smith-Rigdon restoration branch) and need not attend Chapel regularly. Although by my definition an Emergent Mormon can be an active Brighamite Mormon like a New Order Mormon.
An Emergent Mormon (like myself) is someone who grew up LDS, i.e. was raised Mormon, and spent many years in Mormon culture, and appreciates their cultural heritage just like a humanistic Jew appreciates their cultural heritage; even if they doubt most or some of the religious claims of Judaism. In short, the Emergent Mormon treats Mormonism as a life philosophy, appreciating it's current emergent Christian elements as well as Joseph Smith's own emerging transition away from Protestant Fundamentalism toward Spiritual Naturalism.
The Emergent Mormon finds value in mining their Mormon tradition and scripture for life lessons and mythological insights and inspiration. Just as Joseph Campbell encouraged finding value in all the world's religions (see below for more details). Just as Brian McLaren distinguishes between the 4 Sages of Faith, the Emergent Mormon uses the monomyth and McLaren's Harmony Stage, as methods to find value and utility in the mythic philosophy of Mormonism. In the process, he or she sidesteps the unfulfilling pit of pessimistic atheistic nihilism and the rigid and dogmatic straightjacket of doctrinaire scriptural-fundamentalism.
This recognition of prophetic fallibility by many LDS Faithful Defenders nowadays, is not far removed from my emergent paradigm. As my emergent paradigm recognizes this evolutionary development and stages of progress line upon line, precept upon precept; but sees "continuous revelation" as often synonymous with what's been called trickle-up revelation.
Perceptual Constructing & Religion-Making
I believe that we are all constructing a perception of reality the second we wake up and open our eyes. For example, we are constructing a perceptual concept of other people in our head and even the very narrative we have in our head about ourselves, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, our sense of "I," "me," "myself" is a form of "religion-making," a metanarrative (the story of our selfhood). So I have simply given myself permission to construct my own "religion" or "spirituality," a philosophy of life and an empowering personal spirituality that empowers me personally; and I form this spiritual-philosophy through the original LDS Scriptures like the The Lectures on Faith and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and Parley P. Pratt's original LDS pamphlets.
Revisiting Who This Blog is For?
This site may or may not appeal to a member of the Utah-based LDS Church (also know as the Brighamite sect), depending on where they are at on their faith journey. If an LDS member has a firm "testimony" of the traditional supernatural claims of the official LDS Church, this site will likely not appeal to them. However, this site may be useful to New Order Mormons and those who utilize the point of view of StayLDS.com. It may also be useful to those with one foot in, one foot out of the Church, those who the author Christian Kimball calls Edgy Mormons, those "on the inside of the edge"; which he discusses in his book Living on the Inside of the Edge: A Survival Guide. Ultimately, this site is overall about treating Mormonism as a Life Philosophy and utilizing the best parts of it toward inspiring one to be their best self and derive a sense of meaning in life through the Emergent Mormon Perspective. I argue on this blog that Emergent Mormonism is actually liberating when Mormonism is treated philosophically and understood through the historical-metaphorical method and the Smith-Pratt Paradigm.
To be clear, I am not defending nor advocating the LDS "covenant path" where a Word of Wisdom is presented by commandment and constraint, a sacred garment must be worn, tithing is made mandatory to enter the LDS temple; and where Purity Culture has in many LDS circles taken over the Brighamite Sect. For example, see protectldschildren.org. However, I am not trying to de-convert anyone from the Brighamite paradigm. If you are happy and functioning healthily in the Utah-based LDS Church, I say keep at it, I honestly support you and will defend your right and "privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience" (as the 11th Article of Faith puts it); I just ask you allow me the same privilege without judgment or shunning, as the second half of the 11th Article of Faith states: "and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” I am writing from my own perspective as one who went through a "faith crisis" and reconstructed an unorthodox faith or lifestance, I call Emergent Mormonism. My position is not a Creed or Sect, but an interpretive method that any Mormon Restorationist can use if they so choose.
This site also supports many of the more open-minded and scholarly LDS philosophers like Richard Bushman, Patrick Mason, and Terryl and Fiona Givens, etc. The Emergent Mormon Perspective is basically for three kinds of readers, (1) active LDS members who attend the temple but have some doubts and want to explore other points of view. (2) Those who are attempting to "live on the inside of the edge" or some version of New Order Mormonism. (3) The post-Mormon who would like to appreciate their Mormon heritage anew from a different paradigm of seeing Mormonism as a Life-affirming philosophy yet doing so "outside of the LDS institution" (i.e. without attending an LDS Chapel at all).
Thus, this blog offers a third alternative (or moderate or middle way) between aggressive forms of anti-Mormonism -- like some exmormon atheist types I've run into (who are different from the non-rigid atheist types), who are obsessively focused on only presenting Mormon philosophy and culture in a negative light, with a negative filter when it comes to all things Mormon; and seeking to only deconstruct and condemn with hostile righteous indignation and an extremely cynical point of view. It is one thing to have this point of view for a few years, but some of these types remain in this phase for decades. I see these types as stuck in an angry phase, forever mourning their former literalistic paradigm in the Brighamite sect. Yet their new "reverse fundamentalism" and negative filter causes them to fail to recognize that it was their metaphysical/supernatural theistic lens (they developed as a Mormon) which is still the same lens through which they are turning around to morally condemn Mormonism; as if they were still moral theists, wherein metaphysical Good and Evil or Right and Wrong exists objectively, which only makes sense through theism not their atheism. I see these lifelong anti-Mormonism types as the other extreme end of the spectrum similar to the Irod Rod vs. Liahona Mormons and Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons; as they are stuck in the McConkey-trained Iron Rod-Chapel-mindset of their past and are reacting to it still decades later. As a friend of mine once said, the type of person who ends up on the extreme far-left end of the political spectrum is the same type of person that ends up on the extreme far-right end of the spectrum.
Beyond Critic & Apologist
Instead of the binary positions of either the former Mormon turned Critic, focused on only debunking or deconstructing Mormonism through a critical eye (known as anti-Mormonism) or the extreme LDS apologetic stances by those who only focus on defending the traditional Brighamite narrative at all costs. The Emergent Mormon Perspective instead treats Mormonism as a life philosophy and looks at Mormon history honestly. For example, I examine Joseph Smith as a heroic dramatic artist, philosopher, and warrior sage, and yet also as someone fallible who made mistakes: who provides examples of what not to do through his mistakes and failures, as much as inspiration for what to do. In the Emergent Mormon Paradigm, Joseph Smith is neither saint nor scoundrel, but all too human.
A Different Perspective
So my intended reader is anyone raised LDS who wish to appreciate their Mormon heritage from a new philosophical perspective. 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 my 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, from though a 21st Century Rational Worldview.
A Case Study in Functional Mythology: Dr. Paul
In the early 2000s, Dr. Paul Dobransky M.D. attempted to help men and women improve their lives through psychology by synthesizing modern psychology in his ebook containing his diagram system called MindOS. His MindOS is now contained in print books you can buy online. In Dobransky's overall self-improvement technology the aim was personal-boundary health and vitality via well-being and confidence (self-esteem). For men, the goal was boundary-expansion via Masculine Momentum (the opposite of what he calls Depresculinity). As Dobransky's popularity grew, he began to give large seminars for both men and women in the mid 2000s. However he began to realize something was missing in his original MindOS program. Dr. Paul Dobransky M.D. realized he needed to create a functional mythology to organize and articulate men's unconscious instincts in order to provide a technology for helping men and women tap into these instincts and express them in healthy, legal, and mature ways. So relying on the scholarship of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell he found it practically useful and empowering to utilize the instincts of the Gods of Greek mythology as what he called a "tool belt." He developed a program for both women and men. For the men he had Mature Masculine Power 3.0. He briefly discusses his technology for masculine instincts in his February 2023, Psychology Today article, The First Three Instincts of Masculinity: A Personal Perspective: I asked GPT-3 to tell me what it "thinks" about males.
Dr. Paul's masculine programs are no longer available online. But they are interesting to me because in hindsight they prove the importance of a functional "mythology" as a practical psychology that empowers the person and the social "tribe" around shared principles and ideals. Studying Dr. Paul helped me see it as a case study in the importance of fully speaking to one's fullest humanity, both one's primal instincts and tribal needs. These men who attended Dr. Paul's seminars and formed friendships and support groups and message boards discussing his technology, clearly benefited from it. I remember when his programs were thriving there was an active online community. It reminded me of my experience in Mormonism as it gave one a sense of identity and belonging and purpose being part of a group of men discussing and improving their lives and becoming more ethical, more whole, and more successful, etc. If there wasn't a need for this Dr. Paul would not have produced these programs.
I use this as a case study for appreciating what Joseph Smith had done. For just as Dr. Paul Dobransky M.D. utilized the instincts of the Gods of Greek mythology and developed programs and seminars and community for both women and men, Joseph Smith utilized the masculine instincts of his Nephite Heroes to inspire, as well as a priesthood hierarchy, and a Female Relief Society. Dobransky's system fizzled out and he moved onto other things; but Joseph's community continues on strong in various expressions. So just as one can benefit from the Greeks and Dr. Paul, I don't see why one can't benefit from the technology of Joseph Smith.
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. 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 here.
The Book of Mormon & An American Gospel
The Book of Mormon is a midrash, as a kind of fifth gospel, presenting a distinctly American gospel that presents the Spirit of God as a fluid power: empowering the individual toward overcoming obstacles and joining people together as if a unified vine. I thus find it personally empowering when read from this perspective.
A core message of the Book of Mormon is that any form of racism is ultimately Anti-Christian and that we should stop thinking in terms of black-and-white skin color and start thinking in terms of encultured wicked traditions leading to wicked cultures that degenerate; and encultured righteous traditions leading to righteous cultures that thrive; and that no matter your past enculturation, when you join the fold of Christ and choose to bear each other's burdens, the light of Christ ideally shines through you affecting your behavior and countenance.
The Book of Mormon uses the metaphor of fruit peeling ("skins"), that are healthy and ripe like bright shining fruit, to describe those whose countenance shines with love and joy doing good continually. Those with a dark and gloomy countenance, as if a skin (fruit peeling) of decay and rotten fruit, do not have the life-giving light of Christ. For more details see my document Peeling Away Skins of Blindness & Putting on Skins of Brightness.
The message of the Book of Mormon is ultimately about unity, equity, and joyful cultural empowerment; its a simple message of a joyful shining countenance and "good vibes" so to speak from good cultural traditions, compared to resentful and nihilistic traditions causing a gloomy countenance. Hence the message is about contagious cultural energy, i.e. ideas a seeds planted in the psyche, and spiritual transformation from the inside out: from the enlightened and awakened individual toward growing a healthy abundant culture like healthy grape seeds growing a fruitful vineyard of ripe fruit skins for making fine wine. So that "by their fruits," that is their fruitskins (countence) "you shall know them"; as in those with a Christ-infused heart shine with countenances of healing joy and abundance, producing good continually.
The Book of Mormon says the simple Doctrine of Christ is basically the simple "teaching" of an internal change of mind and turning away from error and toward a behavioral changing of one's countenance on a path of producing a Zion-people. It is not about dogmas or Creeds, but the simple doctrine/teachings of Christ as a path to making Zion-people. So as we can see, one can read and feel inspired by the Book of Mormon but not feel the need to join a particular LDS denomination or sect, as it's not about that.
The Emergent Mormon Perspective is not about creedal doctrine, 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 define "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.
The Emergent Mormon Perspective is the view that the 1840s marked the pinnacle of Joseph Smith's revelatory genius and the formation of his American Gospel. Alongside Parley P. Pratt, together they produced a unique theology in Nauvoo which made it distinct and different from the previous Smith-Rigdon Paradigm and Augustine-Luther paradigm.
The core theological innovation of 1840s Nauvoo and the American Gospel was revealing the bodily nature of God, which changed the trajectory of all subsequent interpretations of previous Mormon Scripture. 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 seeking to be low-status while virtue signaling one's humble piety; all of which was based on a Creed that described a body-less, passionless, immaterial deity, which in turn led to a "despising of the body." 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 my 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 in 1890. I just wanted to clarify that here at the outset in this introduction.
