After reading the book Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism, what is clear to me is that Joseph Smith had two goals or agendas. The first was to combat the rising skepticism and atheism of his day. Part of what caused this rise in atheism and skepticism was the versions of Feminism that sought to masculinize women and feminize men. This led to some Protestant sects becoming feminized in the early 1800s in the days of Joseph Smith. This was an issue for many Christians living in the 1800s because Christianity had become a more masculine religion ever since most Indo-Europeans had converted to Christianity by around 1100 AD, and had transformed Christianity into basically a Germanized version of Christianity. The history of this process of transformation has been covered in the books The Germanization of Medieval Christianity and Militant Christianity by Alice Kehoe. So given the masculinization of Christianity from about the year 400 to 1800 due to Indo-European converts, many Indo-European American Christians of the 1800s did not respond favorably to this trend in Christendom at the time which was showing a growing feminization process in Christianity in the 1800s. There was thus a desire among many Christians to revive the virile version of Indo-European Christianity and the healthy masculinity among their forefathers; and firmly secure the traditional family of fathers and mothers together raising children in the home. Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon was one such response to the trend of feminizing Christian men in the 1800s. For more details see chapter 15, “Arise from the Dust, My Sons, and Be Men”: Masculinity in the Book of Mormon by Amy Easton-Flake in the book Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon.
Part of the reason for this rise in these versions of Feminism that masculinizes women and feminizes men, is in part the result of Protestantism itself, as argued by many Eastern Orthodox Christians today in 2025. In contrast to Protestantism, with its endless interpretations of the Bible resulting in eventually Feminist interpretations, the Eastern Orthodox Church maintained it's pro-family structure and masculine identity through for example the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church; which maintained a clear hierarchy of authority and respect for cultural tradition. As well as a strong ethnic identity, as "New Testament Christianity" was integrated into these ethnic cultural families whether it be Russian or Greek, etc. Thus, these tribal cultural traditions were integrated with Middle Eastern Christian symbols and stories, forming a tight knit community. In contrast, as Protestant Christianity in North America became “sectarianized,” it became less and less about lineage and cultural tribal identity and more about competing "belief systems" and right interpretations of the Bible: resulting in schisms and interpretation wars; and thus a loss of any ethnic cultural identity and tribal belonging as it became more about self-centered beliefism: just saying the "sinners prayer" at an altar call to save one's self, and often that's it. It was about one's self and so Protestant sects began competing like businesses, selling their creeds and sectarian theologies like competing fast food chain menu offers. So that you now had sectarian books on “systematic theology” with an utter lack of a feeling of familial tribal belonging. Churches are now so business-oriented as “belief system packages” being sold nowadays, that Church services often begin by encouraging members to turn around and shake hands with each other because of the utter lack of intimacy, trust, and bonding that takes place in many Protestant churches nowadays.
... some women really be like "Jesus is my boyfriend," until I marry, until I meet my guy, Jesus is my husband. Some women like that weird theology. Some of you [Evangelical Christian] guys hold [the view] where you think that book [The Song of Solomon] is about Jesus and the church. ... I'll be honest with you a lot of our [Evangelical Protestant] worship songs, let's keep it [real], they're like love songs to Jesus, right? Think about hymns ... my son [... said, if you] remove the American context, we sing soft rock love songs to Jesus, that is what [Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)] is. If you aren't coming from a paradigm like that and that's predominantly what CCM music is, I think that's very feminized, right? If you can literally take the song and swap out the word Jesus and put the word "baby" or "her," "she," how is that not feminine, right? It's soft music, it's very soft music. Now I think this has gotten better, [... but] generally speaking, a lot of the stuff we sing is very soft; and I think it's difficult for men to sing soft rock love songs to Jesus. We're supposed to love Jesus, we're supposed to have reverence for Jesus. But the songs start feeling like Jesus is your boyfriend, like that's weird and that is because the church has been feminized in my opinion. ....
[The theology and doctrine is an issue as well ...] here's an example take a book like Song of Solomon which is a romance novel, it's a romance book; it's about a man and a woman, that's what that book is about, right; it's about a man and a woman, it's about their love, it's about passion, young Jewish boys weren't allowed to read it until they became a certain age; and there's a weird [Protestant] theology that some of you guys hold, I'm gonna offend some of you guys, [that is] a weird theology some of you guys hold: where you think that book is about Jesus and the Church, and if you take that to its conclusion there's some really weird stuff happening, some sexual stuff happening with Jesus and the Church and where the bride and Jesus is [i.e. the male Christian as the bride and Jesus as the husband of the male-bride are like the couple in the Song of Solomon]. Stop [thinking that]. Those are metaphors, that's a metaphor .... that's not literal, but some of you guys are like I'm gonna get to heaven and have a romantic relationship with Jesus, like it's just weird. Some of this stuff is mad feminine, like let's call it what it is. If you read Song of Solomon [that way about it, it is no] wonder why some men have trouble going to churches. Because you're telling them that you they're going to be a part of something [where they as a man are] going to be Jesus's wife in heaven. Think through this. ...... the new Israel [is] the church, Gentiles [are] being grafted in, it's beautiful; but it's not a romantic relationship, but that's a lot of the tone and the music around it; and it's okay for women because some women really be like "Jesus is my boyfriend" until I marry, until I meet my guy, Jesus is my husband. Some women are like that, it's much more sensible for women to view Jesus this way. .... So this is real and I didn't make this stuff up, [a lot of] men have been saying this stuff for years. Men have been saying this stuff in church for years and this is why a lot of men have trouble going to church. ...
A lot of ministry ... a lot of these churches, the the entire staff [are] women and [there is only a male] pastor or two [... and] some elders, but then all the staff and everything is ran by [women] ....... I think that sometimes men, masculine men, [don't like this stuff], men that like to work out, men [that] like to box, men that like to go hunting, men that like to fill in the blank [that are] quote-unquote stereotypically masculine; I'm not saying if you don't do those things you're not masculine. I'm just saying that those things tend to be reserved for a certain type of man.
What most Mormons themselves do not realize, is that what Joseph Smith did was continue the already begun process of germanizing Christianity (what took place from about 400 to 1800), to be even more masculine through Smith's restored gospel. In other words, Christianity had already been greatly culturally transformed by Germanic converts to Christianity over the centuries. Mormonism was just a continuation of that, but instead of Gentiles becoming Jewish as the apostle Paul taught, Joseph Smith declared that some Europeans were already Israelites. You see in the New Testament, Paul literally believed that Indo-Europeans needed to have their genes swapped out and replaced with Jewish genes. You see the word "spirit" in Greek is pneuma (pronounced ("nooma"). This "nooma" was for Paul an actual fluid substance that could be literally poured into people and could fill them up and mix with their human cells and DNA (see my essay here). When Jesus died and resurrected, he became a pneumatic ("noomatic") being, composed of omnipresent divine pneuma/nooma. This pneuma (fluid substance) carried with it divine properties as well as Jesus' Jewish DNA. So when the Gentile received the spirit (pneuma) of Christ, according to Paul this fluid pneuma was literally poured into the person and began a process of swapping out their Gentile DNA for Jesus's Jewish DNA. This whole idea sounded outlandish when I first learned about the concept, but the biblical scholarship is clear on this and can't be denied. So before I continue here are some sources that go into more detail about this "gene swapping" idea that is based on sound biblical scholarship:
- A Jewish Paul, Matthew Thiessen’s Case for Paul’s Pneumatic Gene Therapy by Clarke Morledge (Also see the book A Jewish Paul by Matthew Thiessen (2023 Edition), chapter 8 "Pneumatic Gene Therapy."
If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul by Caroline Johnson Hodge (pages 12-15, 140-146).
According to Wikipedia the people of Rome were composed “mainly of Latin-speaking Italic people. The Latins were a people with a marked Mediterranean character, related to other neighboring Italic peoples such as the Falisci.” On the page for the Italic peoples it states, "The Italics were an ethnolinguistic group who are identified by their use of the Italic languages, which form one of the branches of Indo-European languages."
These Italic peoples would have had their own genealogy and ethnic lineage and religious heritage and culture. Paul was basically seeking to replace their ethnic and cultural lineage with his Messianic theology. In other words, through his supernatural mystery cult ideology, their entire ethnicity and culture and previous pagan religion of the past would be erased and replaced with a Jewish heritage and identity.
This is explained, in not exactly the words I use above, on the Data Over Dogma YouTube Channel, on Episode 26 (October 1, 2023), “A Jewish Paul with Matthew Thiessen”: where in this podcast episode, after discussing how Paul was basically embarrassingly wrong about the imminent apocalyptic end-times (the expected very soon return of Christ by Paul which he clearly got wrong), around twenty minutes these biblical scholars then discuss how in Romans 1: 18-32, it is basically Paul "crapping" on non-Jews (Romas) who he describes as inherently sinful or vice-ridden by their ethnic nature as non-Jews; and how pagans trying to be perfect and holy by performing the Torah law codes is not good enough. At 30 minutes, Matthew Thiessen says people don't want to see Paul as actually engaging in ethnic stereotyping in Romans 1: 18-32, but that is what he is doing.
This reminded me of Paul (or a pseudepigraphic author echoing his views) making a prejudicial sounding statement in Titus 1:11-13, where he affirms the words of the Grecian poet Epimenides who said those who resided on the island of Crete (the Cretans) were as a people or nation, “always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Back to the podcast, Matthew Thiessen goes on to explain that for Paul, the Pagans/Gentiles needed to actually become ethnic Jews themselves. Beginning at 40 minutes, Thiessen basically explains that Paul was being ethnocentric and at 44 minutes he explains that Paul believed that Pagan/Gentiles needed to literally become Abraham's sons (ethnic Jews), his direct seed (meaning of Jewish genetic lineage).
Here is what Thiessen says at the 43-45 minute mark:
… Paul talks about Abraham in both Galatians and in Romans … Paul is adamant [in saying to his Jewish opponents regarding the solution for pagans/gentiles], “Oh yes, you're right, we have to follow Abraham, but you're doing it wrong.” There he makes a really complicated argument in Galatians 3 and 4 … [Paul] doesn't say you don't need Abraham as your father. He actually says, “Yea, you need to have Abraham as your father because God made a whole series of promises to Abraham and to his seed [i.e. Abraham's ethnicity]. [So] if you want those promises you have to become Abrahamic seed and Abrahamic sons to inherit them.” So there is a very, again, ethnocentric, if we want to use that word, I think it's a very dangerous word to use but I don't mind using it about Paul. There is an ethnocentric component that Abraham and [genetic] descent still matter for Paul and genealogy matters. And so the way that Paul creatively gets around it or creatively thinks through it, is Jesus is Abraham's seed through David and if the Messiah's spirit, his pneuma, his stuff, gets into you and you [as a non-Jew] are placed in the Messiah [contained in his Jewish DNA/ethnicity] then you have also taken on a [Jewish] Messianic identity. So you become Messianic, and you become sons and seed [DNA] of Abraham too; and not in sort of like a wishy washy “spiritual way” that we [modern Lutheran/Protestant influenced people] mean it, but spiritual in the way that ancients meant it. This pneuma has been inserted into you. There's a chapter [in my book] where I talk about it as some pneumatic gene therapy. I think Paul is really thinking your genealogy, your whole DNA structure, has changed radically because the spirit of the Messiah [i.e. the pneuma containing Jesus’ Jewish DNA] has invaded your body quite physically. And now you [as a pagan/gentile] got this connection [to Abraham’s Jewish genes] and so then you get everything [an ethnic Jew gets], including resurrection.
In his talk Gentiles as Impure Animals in the Writings of Early Christ Followers, Matthew Thiessen begins at the 2 -8 minute mark by explaining that Mark, Matthew, Luke and Paul are all basically describing non-Jewish gentiles as impure animals. Matthew Thiessen begins by discussing how the Jesus-character in the Gospel of Mark in chapter 7 responds to a person of Greek genetic descent as a dog. He goes on to explain that despite Christian apologetics, this really was in reality a product of Jewish ethnocentrism. Matthew Thiessen goes on to explain that the Gospels actually present Jesus as only going to Jews and not Gentiles, and the woman being called a dog was clearly meant as an ethnic slur. At 8 minutes into the video, Thiessen discusses the Gospel of Matthew and how Matthew carefully edits Mark to remove certain things he doesn't like; but he does not remove the Israelite ethnocentrism. In fact, in chapter 15 of Matthew, he doubles down and contrasts the non-Jewish Greek woman as an impure dog with Israelites as pure sheep. Thus, Jews are holy sheep and gentiles are unholy dogs.
Note that some scholars argue that Mark 7 and Matthew 15 are intentionally describing Jesus as ethnocentric in order to convey a kind of role model for eventually overcoming such ethnocentrism and being inclusive of Gentiles. These scholars argue that the authors of Mark and Mathew are members of a largely ethnically Jewish group of Jewish-Christians (or Messianic Jews), who have accepted many Gentile converts into their group; while these same Jewish-Christians (or Messianic Jews) are also being rejected by their ethnic Jewish peers for calling Jesus the Messiah. So the authors of Mathew and Mark are sort of torn between appeasing their ethnic Jewish peers by retaining ethnocentric pride in their ethnic Jewishness, yet also wishing to be welcoming of Gentile converts. By describing Jesus as ethnocentric and calling a Greek woman a dog, yet nevertheless Jesus goes on to heal her pagan child due to her faithful respect to the Jews and her belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the overall message is one of: Yes the Jews are the pure Chosen People, seperated from Gentile dogs, yet through Gentiles becoming Jewish through the seed (pneuma) of Jesus, they are welcomed and integrated into Israel.
At 10 minutes, Thiessen moves on to the Gospel of Luke and Acts. He says that Luke and Acts or Luke-Acts (the product of a single author) is not this safe haven for "Gentile friendly" information as some wish, but instead retains the same ethnocentrism discussed above. Thiessen then goes on to discuss Acts chapter 10, that describes Gentiles as impure animals. Thiessen explains that basically the author of Luke believes that Gentiles are born to be inherently genetically impure just like some zoological animals are impure by their nature. At 14-15 minutes, he explains that for Luke, a gentile is impure or unclean in the same way any other animal is unclean or impure. So that only a new act on the part of the God of Israel could rewrite a gentile's DNA and transform the gentile's formerly genetically impure DNA into Jewish DNA in order to make them pure and holy. According to the Gospel of Mark, there is an essence to Gentile identity that fundamentally distinguishes them from Jews, as they are akin to impure animals and are by nature unfit for incorporation into holy Israel (God's chosen ethnic tribes).
At 15 minutes, he explains that the woman remains the dog in Matthew 15 because she is genetically impure; but she still benefits from pure Israel. Thiessen explains that the message of these authors is that Gentiles who enter into the Pauline movement remain Gentiles outwardly and thus are not to keep the ethnic aspects of the Jewish Law that apply only to ethnic Jews; yet whereas they were formally impure animals they have become purified and grafted into Israel through "pneumatic gene therapy," which is a process of replacing their non-Jewish DNA with the DNA of the ethnically Jewish Messiah (Jesus). God has basically begun rewriting the DNA of these impure animals (gentiles) so that now they are becoming pure and holy. Paul literally calls his followers "holy ones," translated "saints" in most Bible translations. Gentiles become receptacles of the Holy Spirit (Sacred Pneuma) which transforms them into holy beings with Jewish DNA.
At 16 minutes, Thiessen discusses how Paul also uses "dog language" to refer to the Philippians as Paul argues that his opponents are basically gentile dogs in sheep's clothing. In other words, Paul's enemies are called "gentile dogs" as an insult, which he does because they are trying to get his gentile "holy ones" (undergoing a supernatural process of gene swapping/pneumatic gene therapy) to become practitioners of the ethnic Jewish law codes; so Paul is basically saying that his gentiles "in Christ" are not fully Jews yet but still stuck in gentile flesh bodies, so they do not need to follow the ethnic codes of Judaism. They are instead saved with the pneuma of Christ in them and the hope of resurrecting into a new pure celestial body. In criticizing these opponents of his Paul refers to them as dogs.
At 23 minutes, he explains how in the Book of Enoch non-Jewish nations are described as impure animals and in the final end of times or the End of History, it describes the inclusion of gentiles when they are transformed not into white sheep (meaning pure Israelites) in 1 Enoch 93:7-8.
At about 29 minutes, Thiessen explains the meaning of Galatians 3:28 as Paul does not actually distinguish between Gentile dogs and Jewish sheep, but what he is saying is that in the end ultimately those who are in Christ (genetically transformed through the DNA of Christ) become equal with Jews; but while on earth there is still a distinction in kind, because the Gentile is still in a mortal flesh body and still has Gentile DNA mixed with Jesus's Jewish DNA. So only in the finalization of the "pneumatic gene therapy" process does one lose their impure "dog" nature, only in the complete transformation from impure dog/human-flesh to pure sheep/pneumatic-body is one fully formed into a Jewish holy one. Only at one's resurrection does the Gentile's mortal body when laid in the grave, does it then resurrect or sprout the new pneumatic body that rises from the grave.
At 32 minutes, Thiessen goes on to explain that even with the language of being in Christ there is no male or female, Jew nor Gentile, you still have being maintained a distinction in gender roles and different ethnicities while still in the gentile flesh body prior to death and resurrection.
Joseph Smith's Restoration as the Declaration that American Mormons are Already Pure Israelites Without Any Need of Gene Swapping
Joseph Smith, as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, pretty much changes the idea of a male becoming an inseminated bride and having their genes replaced, by removing the concept of needing to be grafted into Israel (as a kind of second-class citizen). Joseph Smith removes this need for supernatural insemination and gene swapping, by declaring that all those who convert to Mormonism are one of the Lost Tribes of Israel (which I will discuss below). This removes the concept of being thought of as a "male bride" needing to have one's genes swapped out with a male messiah's seed (sperma). Instead, the male Mormon is the one doing the inseminating (as one sees in the book of Abraham 2:11 and D&C 132). Call me crazy, but I find the Mormon restoration much more manly and far less emasculating.
Another thing Mormonism does is restore the concept of tribal culture and tribal identity. The Protestant focus on beliefs over tribe does not exist in ancient Judaism when being a Jew was both one's tribal ethnicity and religion; as Judaism is an ethnic religion at its core; similar to Shintoism as the ethnic/indigenous religion of the Japanese and Buddhism and Confucianism are Chinese folk religions.
The genius of Joseph Smith is that he provided a response to all of these issues by responding to atheism with a theistic American religion. He responded to sectarian splintering with a return to, or a revitalization of, the tribal religion by answering the question “Who are the native inhabitants of the Americans?” By declaring them Israelites, and then simultaneously declaring that Europeans in the Americas were also from the Lost Tribes of Israel. Thus Joseph Smith corrected Protestant Christianity by returning to the original Judaic tribal origins of Christianity, by creating an Americanized gospel that gave American LDS Christians a sense of pride in their own American identity as the Lost Tribes of Israel.
This "gene swapping" covered in the biblical scholarship above, is why when Paul says that in Christ there is “no barbarians or Scythians [i.e. Indo-Europeans],” (Colossians 3: 10-11), he is saying that through the fluid pneuma containing the seed/ethnicity of Jesus, European converts to Christianity for example, are literally genetically transformed into Jewish ethnic persons (thus transformed into Israelites) through the pneuma (spirit) in them that beings a process of literally transforming their Gentile DNA into Jesus' Jewish DNA.
Paul was of the Tribe of Benjamin and apparently did not know about, or did not believe in, or did not understand the concept of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Joseph Smith can then be seen as a modern-day seer and revelator, adding an alternative perspective to the first century revelator the Apostle Paul, regarding how Gentiles (in particular Indo-Europeans) can be integrated and merged into Israel without always a full gene swapping. So Joseph Smith's solution was not this concept of a full gene swapping but instead the idea was that Europeans in particular were declared members of the Lost Tribes of Israel when they joined the LDS Church, from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in particular. So while Paul turned to the mystery cults and Stoicism (where he got the idea of the pneuma), in order to invent the idea of gene swapping out Gentile genes for Jewish genes; Joseph Smith instead turned to the idea of the Lost Tribes of Israel and declared most converts to Mormonism as already Israelites and thus not in need of any gene swapping.
The "Pauline gospel" held to the ideal that a "male-bride of Jesus" was to be unmarried and celibate in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (unless they couldn't control their desire). This was because Paul explained to both female and male followers of his that Jesus was your "only husband" and thus as a male-bride Paul was giving his male followers "as [Jesus'] pure bride [as if a chaste virgin to the groom Jesus]" (2 Cor. 11:2 EXB, words in brackets my own). The Matthean Jesus corroborates this ideal of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7, in Matthew 19:12, where the Matthean Jesus basically says that the ideal is indeed celibacy (being a "eunuch"), but one could marry if they could not handle the purer ideal state of celibacy as virgin bride for Jesus.
With this Pauline ideology in mind, what becomes clear is that Joseph Smith was likely too manly to embrace this idea of being a seeded male bride. Thus, Joseph Smith sought to instead restore the earlier Abrahamic and Hebrew theology: when men were not seen as "brides" nor pacifists, but were to be "real men" and defend their tribe and they did the marrying and having sex rather than being seeded themselves. Joseph Smith began his project of restoring this ancient Hebrew masculinity by giving his characters in the Book of Mormon more masculine characteristics as Hebrew Christians. He then edited the "Pauline gospel" further in his translation of the New Testament (the JST) by removing the idea of plucking out your body parts in Mark 9: so that the idea was no longer to be a celibate male-bride of Jesus, by repressing your sexual instincts as a man and imitating the passive nature of a feminine bride as a male: by being overly meek, peaceful, and long-suffering (as a voluntary martyr).
Joseph Smith then restored the original idea of the God of Israel being a passionate Father deity with a body. One was to then imitate God the Father's virility and bodily passions as a Mormon Christian by expanding God the Father's kingdom by growing your own kingdom (see The King Follet Discourse). Instead of the more feminine virtues of passivity as a Pauline male-bride, the Mormon Jesus rejects radical pacifism among his disciples (see D&C 98; also see LDS Index for "Defend") and condemns those who preach celibacy in D&C 49: 15. Instead of theosis (or divine sanctification) only through the more feminine virtues, celibacy, and voluntary martyrdom in the Pauline gospel, in the Mormon gospel theosis (or exaltation) is achieved through the masculine virtues as well, which is modeled by the character Ammon in the Book of Mormon (see Theosis in the Book of Mormon by Val Larsen and Newell D. Wright). Also see Parley Pratt's An Appeal To The Inhabitants Of The State Of New York, where Pratt defends belief in a bodily God of parts and passions and rejects the celibate ideal and promotes healthy male sexual virility and the passionate drive to thrive (or what Nietzsche calls the will to power). Thus, what Mormonism did is correct for the anti-body ideas in Christendom, as I discuss in my introduction: by restoring a more positive view of the body and masculine instincts through the restoring of the Abrahamic and Hebrew Bible model of manhood through dominion and dynasty: wherein, Joseph Smith restored the ancient Hebrew concepts of masculine virility and dominion and the formation of a kingship dynasty. So that rather than being seeded as a bride, the male Mormon himself was to do the seeding (inseminating) through the seed (sperm) of his own body (see Abraham 2:11); and producing a kingdom with his own brides, which was the restored path to heaven and theosis per D&C 132.
What I see in all of this is a more masculine Indo-European energy being filtered into LDS Scripture from Joseph Smith. In fact, most of the early converts to Mormonism were of Indo-European descent. The Mormon gospel then was not about being a seeded male bride and martyr pacifist, but in Mormonism, the Indo-Europeans from the North (Scandinavians, the former Vikings) were to come to America as the gathering of the Lost Tribes of Israel in America as a strong and reproductive People. As the article Scandinavian Mormons and Their "Zion" by Helge Seljaas (2016), explains:
[Ever since the founding of the LDS Church] by Joseph Smith in 1830, The Mormon church has been very much an "American" institution. The Book of Mormon, which is accepted as divine scripture by the membership of the church, deals largely with America, "a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands . . ." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi, 1.5). In this respect the early leaders of the church, mostly from New England, continued the tradition of the founding Pilgrim fathers of building a commonwealth for Christ, a Zion that was to be a light for the world. In 1831 Smith made public a revelation in which he addressed the righteous with the following words: "Go ye out of Babylon; gather ye from among the nations ..." (Doctrines & Covenants 133:7). Five years later, at the dedication of the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, Smith and his companion Oliver Cowdery declared that Moses had appeared to them and committed to them the keys for the gathering of Israel from the lands of the North (Doctrines & Covenants 110:11 [also see D&C 133:26]). According to Smith, Judah was to return to Jerusalem, but Israel would return to Zion. The two places had become separated, and it was the job of Mormon missionaries to seek out the blood of Israel spread throughout the world and lead its members to Zion. Zion was America, but by the time the Scandinavians were hearing about it from the missionaries, it had been localized in the minds of most people as the Rocky Mountain area. The gathering of Israel became the most influential of Mormonism's doctrines. Over the next century slightly more than 30,000 Scandinavians would be gathered in the "gospel net" and settled in Zion. Denmark was the leading nation, producing 56 percent of all Scandinavian Mormons; a little over 32 percent were Swedish, 11 percent were Norwegian …
In the article The blood of Israel in Europe by Wilfried Decoo (September 25, 2012) we read:
At a multi-stake conference in Berlin in 2010, Area President Erich W. Kopischke quoted Joseph Smith as having declared that “England, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Holland and Belgium have a considerable amount of the blood of Israel among the people which must be gathered out.” It was surprising to be reminded of that doctrinal concept.1
Older members who grew up with the “doctrinal answers” of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie are no doubt well acquainted with the notion: scores of Europeans, especially in northern countries, are literal descendants of the House of Israel through the lost tribes, in particular the tribe of Ephraim. That would explain why so many British and Scandinavian citizens in the 19th century were willing to accept the gospel, for their “believing blood” recognized the truth. As these thousands of European converts heeded the call to emigrate to Zion, first to Nauvoo and then to Deseret, it became common to say these “Israelites” saved the fledgling church in America, injecting it with their sheer numbers, their goods, tools, skills, and knowledge. In 1890, two-thirds of Utah’s population consisted of such immigrants and their children.2 Genetic studies confirm the ancestry of white Utah Mormon residents: 61% British, 31% Scandinavian, with Swiss and German for most of the remainder.3
In the 1960s and 70s, lost tribes, Israel’s blood in Europe, as well as somewhat implausible explications in popular Mormon books, slowly faded out of official view. Church manuals and magazines turned to what correlation emphasized as the more central tenets of the faith, fit for an expanding, worldwide church. …
… From the early days of Mormonism two doctrinal approaches appear side by side, one expressing a high regard for Israel’s elect lineage, the other emphasizing the gospel’s universalism which directly includes all mankind. The relation between lineage and universalism is an issue that also the early Christian church had to confront, as various events and discussions in Acts and Epistles demonstrate. Both approaches can be found in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, hence the possibility of selecting verses that give more support to one position or the other. Joseph Smith frequently stressed universalism, but within it he could simultaneously see the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes. In the original perspective, white Europeans and Americans were considered Gentiles who could through conversion be adopted in the House of Israel. But the recognition of literal Israelite descent, which was first applied to Joseph Smith and his family, became gradually applied to all Latter-day Saints. Such literal descendency could be explained by the mixing of “remnants” of scattered Israelites with Gentiles somewhere in their ancestry.
… the notion that “the people of Israel were a distinct and noble people in the premortal existence” and that “foreordination determined, to a large extent, an individual’s placement among tribes and nations” seems to remain official doctrine, as e.g. taught though current CES Institute material, with ample quotations from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, but leaving out the parts about the “less valiant.” The quotations further confirm that “Israel is an eternal people. Members of that chosen race first gained their inheritance with the faithful in the pre-mortal life.” And: “The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh.”7
On the other hand, specifically since 1978, members of the First Presidency and of the Twelve have repeatedly emphasized universalism, which is attested in both ancient and modern scriptures and which had never been ignored in previous decades either. …
Gordon B. Hinckley gave a stern warning: “We all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given to President Kimball … I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ … Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”11 …
At the same time, in conformity with Joseph Smith’s dynamic incorporation of both lineage and universalism, church authorities continue to use the imagery of the Abrahamic covenant and of the House of Israel, with emphasis on its all-encompassing nature. In Mormon doctrine, indeed, universalism does not exclude the continued recognition of Israel as a separate people, hence in the Book of Mormon the predicted fruitful interaction between the Gentiles and the scattered House of Israel for the salvation of both, as illustrated in Zenos’ allegory of the olive trees (Jacob 5) ….
… Just like in the days of Peter and Paul, it is not always evident to balance the advocacy of chosen lineage and the acceptance of a totally deracialized humanity. Peter identified the Church contrastively as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Peter 2:9), while Paul focused on universalism: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28–29). Hence the need for clarifications, such as Daniel H. Ludlow was invited to give in the Ensign.15 Hence also the tensions when some authors, who uphold the doctrines of a preexistent House of Israel and of the subsequent chosen bloodlines based on premortal merit, feel that these insights are now being “untaught” and “ignored.”16
As to the notion of Israelite blood in Europe, where does it stand now after its extensive use in former decades? Its occurrence seems rather rare, but it tends to turn up at weighty conferences and meetings in Europe, raised by eminent church leaders, in order to boost the faith in church growth. …
Next to Britain, the presence of Israelite blood had also been recognized early on in Scandinavian and Germanic countries. As the church slowly expanded in European Latin countries (Italy, Spain, and Portugal), they too became included in Israelite descendency. In 1995, at a seminar for European stake and mission presidents held in Paris, Jeffrey R. Holland strongly reemphasized the notion:
The Church in Europe must live again. The work of the Church has run on the backs of its European saints since the beginning. Don’t think that you are just minding the shop waiting for the Savior to come. Don’t think that the great days of gathering in Europe are over. This is our time. Europe is the richest composition of the blood of Israel we’ve known. The blood of Israel out of these lands saved the Church. They left behind family members, children, grandchildren, and friends. They are still here. And we must find them. The blood of Israel is here.20
In 2010 in Berlin, as mentioned at the onset of this article, Elder Kopischke referred to Joseph Smith as having declared that “England, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Holland and Belgium have a considerable amount of the blood of Israel among the people which must be gathered out.” One should remark that this quotation comes from the White Horse prophecy, which has been identified by Church leaders and by experts as a late nineteenth-century document, of which the content cannot be verified as authored by Joseph Smith.21 But it is telling that more than one document in the second half of the 19th century tried to foist later Mormon beliefs upon Joseph Smith. The mention of “a considerable amount of the blood of Israel” or “the richest composition of the blood of Israel” in these countries vastly amplifies the early Mormon idea of only “remnants” of scattered Israelites who had mixed with Gentiles. …
Positive views on “believing blood” and “lineage”:
The preceding discussion may give the impression that concepts such as “believing blood” and “lineage” are better seen as obsolete because of their position within the doctrinal perspective that later also harbored racist beliefs. That should not be the case as long as the concepts are clearly circumscribed and remain within their proper scriptural realm. Also, sometimes some critics throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Bruce R. McConkie defined “believing blood” as “the aptitude and inclination of certain persons to accept and believe the principles of revealed religion.”22 That sounds quite satisfactory if applicable to any individual from whatever background or race. Scriptures such as “my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:26) or “mine elect hear my voice“ (D&C 29:7) support the notion that a number of people readily react to the message and others not. The factors that contribute to conversion are also an interesting object of sociological and psychological research which helps us understand the complex framework that facilitates or hinders that drastic mental step.23 …
The concept of “lineage” as tied to the House of Israel is deeply ingrained in Mormon doctrine and in the Scriptures. As mentioned supra, it is very possible to combine it with a universalist perspective, without referring to premortal classes. The pivotal principles of scattering and gathering can be interpreted on various levels and in various locations, including their extension to multiple Zions. “Lineage” can continue to have special significance in the patriarchal blessing which, since the dawn of Mormonism, has become a treasured once-in-a-lifetime experience for Latter-day Saints. In earlier times, when nearly all members were of North European descent (including the American-born white converts), it seemed uncomplicated to assume literal tribal descendency from Ephraim, in line with the beliefs of scattering of the lost tribes. For American Indians, as supposed descendants of Lamanites, the physical lineage was evidently traced to Manasseh. But in view of expanding the church to all countries and races, as well as of advancing insights in demography, adjustments in rationale and formulation help smooth the attribution to a certain tribe, such as through adoption, assignment to a tribe, bestowal of the blessings of a tribe upon an individual, or by simply accepting that over some three millennia, the blood of Israel, literally or figuratively, spread to all corners of the world, even to Pygmies and to Aboriginals. Whether literal or spiritual, the determination of tribal descent is meant as an emotional confirmation of belonging to the House of Israel.24 ...
As we can see, the concept of "European Ephraimites" is very much embedded in LDS scripture and doctrine. While the past tradition that contained racist ideas and pre-existence favoritism dogma is not found in LDS Scripture. So despite its problems found in some past traditions which were not scriptural, as discussed in the rest of the article above, the problems can be dealt with by removing the idea of favored spirits in the pre-existence and the idea that God favors one race over another. With these corrections, the doctrine of "European Ephraimites" then means that instead of this idea of Gene Swapping or "pneumatic gene therapy," Joseph Smith argued that some who converted to the LDS Church were revealed as already descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israelites, while those who were more Gentile became Israelites through the Holy Ghost. For example, an Indo-European convert to Mormonism from the Northern countries, was believed to have intermixed with one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. So as Smith says below, somebody who has more of the Israelite bloodline have less of a need for a conversion of the Spirit to transform their genes into Israelite genes:
“[A]s the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene… while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite.”
~ Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 3, p. 380
[Brigham Young confirmed this:]
“[Joseph taught] that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their veins, and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to think they were going into fits.”
~ Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 269
(Source)
What this means is that having more Israelite blood, Joseph Smith (who LDS scripture says is of the Tribe of Joseph) as an American of Irish and British descent does not need to undergo a "[purging] out the old blood" to "make him actually of the seed of Abraham." Instead, Smith was able (through creative midrash-making), to maintain his dignity and retain a sense of respect for his ethnic heritage by merging Europeans like himself into the Lost Tribes of Israel. I personally see this as Joseph Smith restoring a sense of pride in his ethnic heritage (which was mostly British and Irish) and combining that with his pride in being an American: by forming new scripture that makes Europeans part of the elect chosen people and America itself deemed just as holy as the holy land in Jerusalem.
“Once we know who we are, and the royal linage of which we are a part, our actions and directions in life will be more appropriate to the inheritance.” [Russel M. Nelson]
“ . . . the Gentiles who receive the gospel are, in the greater part, gentiles who have the blood of Israel in their veins.” [Joseph Fielding Smith]
“Is it necessary that we be of the house of Israel in order to accept the gospel and all the blessings pertaining to it? If so, how do we become of the house of Israel, by adoption or by direct lineage? Every person who embraces the gospel becomes of the house of Israel. In other words, they become members of the chosen lineage, or Abraham’s children through Isaac and Jacob unto whom the promises were made. The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of Abraham through Ephraim, son of Joseph, Those who are not literal descendants of Abraham and Israel must become such, and when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree and are entitled to all the rights and privileges as heirs.” [Joseph Fielding Smith]
“... In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has informed us in detail how this Priesthood descended. After explaining that it is the duty of the twelve apostles to ordain “evangelical ministers,” or patriarchs, in this dispensation, he declares that “the order of this Priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.” … [Joseph Fielding Smith]
LINEAGE IN ISRAEL BY BLOOD RELATIONSHIP. Is the lineage of Ephraim traced through blood relationship, or is it traced by the believing class?
When a man who is of Israel joins the Church, his tribal relationship does not change. For instance, a descendant of Judah would be classed as of the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Benjamin as of the tribe of Benjamin, and so with those of other tribes. Ephraim was blessed with the birthright in Israel, and in this dispensation he has been called to stand at the head to bless the other tribes of Israel. This is the interpretation as discovered in the discourses of the leading brethren and in the blessings of the patriarchs of the Church from the beginning, as the following excerpts will show:
“There is the fact revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, who was of the lineage of Joseph through the loins of Ephraim, that the majority of the people who have been first to receive the gospel and priesthood of the latter-day dispensation, are descendants of some of the house of Ephraim scattered among the nations, and therefore, the stick of Joseph-the Book of Mormon-is in their hands.”
“It is Ephraim that I have been searching for all the days of my preaching, and that is the blood which ran in my veins when I embraced the gospel. If there are any of the other tribes of Israel mixed with the Gentiles, we are also searching for them, Though the Gentiles are cut off, do not suppose that we are not going to preach the gospel among the Gentile nations, for they are mingled with the house of Israel…. You understand who we are; we are of the house of Israel, of the royal seed, of the royal blood.”President Brigham Young also said: “You have heard Joseph say the people did not know him; he had his eyes on the relation to blood-relations…. His descent from Joseph that was sold into Egypt was direct, and the blood was pure in him. This is why the Lord chose him, and we are pure when this blood-strain from Ephraim comes down pure. The decrees of the Almighty will be exalted-that blood which was in him was pure, and he had the sole right and lawful power, as he was the legal heir to the blood that has been on the earth and has come down through a pure lineage.”[Joseph Fielding Smith]
“If the patriarch who is here should lay his hands upon your head and declare your genealogy, he would tell you . . . that, almost without exception, you are the descendants of Ephraim.” … It is clearly shown from these blessings and the interpretations given to the scriptures that the brethren from the beginning of the Church in these last days believed and taught that lineage is a matter of blood relationship. However, if a person should join the Church, and he is a pure Gentile, the Prophet has said the old blood would be purged out and he would be grafted into the house of Israel. In such a case the individual could be properly assigned to one of the tribes, probably to Ephraim.” [Joseph Fielding Smith]
“Will we go to the Gentile nations to preach the Gospel? Yes, and gather out the Israelites wherever they are mixed among the nations of the earth. What part or portion of them? The same part or portion that redeemed the House of Jacob, and saved them from perishing with famine in Egypt. …Ephraim has become mixed with all the nations of the earth, and it is Ephraim that is gathering together.
It is Ephraim that I have been searching for all the days of my preaching, and that is the blood which ran in my veins when I embraced the Gospel. If there are any of the other tribes of Israel mixed with the Gentiles, we are searching for them. Though the Gentiles are cut off, do not suppose that we are not going to preach the Gospel among the Gentile nations, for they are mingled with the House of Israel, …
… Take a family of ten children, for instance, and you may find nine of them purely of the Gentile stock, and one son, or one daughter in that family who is purely of the blood of Ephraim. It was in the veins of the father or the mother, and was produced in the son or daughter, while all the rest of the family are Gentiles. You may think that it is singular, but it is true. It is the House of Israel we are after, and we care not whether they come from the east, the west, the north, or the south; from China, Russia, England, California, North or South America, or some other locality; and it is the very lad on whom father Jacob laid his hands, that will save the House of Israel. The Book of Mormon came to Ephraim, for Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, and the Book of Mormon was revealed to him, and while he lived he made it his business to search for those who believed the Gospel….You understand who we are; we are of the House of Israel, of the royal seed, of the royal blood.” [Brigham Young]
Scriptures:
D&C 86:8-11:
“Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you [Joseph Smith and the first Mormons in 1832], with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—
For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a light unto the Gentiles, and through this priesthood, a savior unto my people Israel. The Lord hath said it. Amen.”
Article of Faith #10:
“We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; ...”
Doctrine and Covenants 109:67:
“And may all the scattered remnants of Israel, who have been driven to the ends of the earth, come to a knowledge of the truth, believe in the Messiah, and be redeemed from oppression, and rejoice before thee.”
Doctrine and Covenants 103:17:
“For ye [LDS members in 1834] are the children of Israel, and of the seed of Abraham, and ye must needs be led out of bondage by power, and with a stretched-out arm.”
Doctrine and Covenants 110:11:
“After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.”
Doctrine and Covenants 64:34-36:
“Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days.And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.
For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out.”
Much is said about the tribes of Israel from which most of us are supposed to have descended. With some there is quite a feeling of choice in regard to the tribe from which they sprang, but let me say that whether we sprang from Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh, or from a family of Gentile origin, that of all these tribes and classes, whoever receive the Gospel and are molded and fashioned by the spirit of the living God, will be entitled to a place in the kingdom of our Heavenly Father. Hence it is written "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." And again it is written, "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." —[Colossians] [1:]16 and [3:]10, 11.
In other words, Hyde is confirming what Joseph had explained and Brigham echoed above, which is that those with less Israelite DNA will receive more of the spirit ("nooma") poured into them, molding and fashioning them into a noomatic body by the spirit (nooma) of the living God. So one should not feel choice or superior in regard to their tribe from which they sprang for the "nooma" will mold and fashion everyone (all ethnic tribes and classes) until the pneuma of Christ is in all.
If you really look at the Hebrew Bible and read it through the lens of dominion and dynasty (the title of the book here), you begin to see that Israelite religion is just like many other religions: which is about ethnicity, as in family lineage and the procreation of heirs.
When you look at Christianity from this perspective, Mormon Christianity is a return to Israelite lineal tribal religion and kingship dynasties. Instead of a European Gentile believing he has to have his genes literally transformed into Jewish genes (as Paul argues for in the New new Testament), Mormon theology presents the idea that Gentiles, in particular Europeans of British, German and Scandinavian descent, already have some Israelite genes intermixed with their Indo-European DNA. So that they do not have to undergo what Matthew Thiessen calls “pneumatic gene therapy.”
So if the first LDS members were already members of the Israelite family as Europeans, then it was not about “pneumatic gene therapy” (like with Paul's non-Israelite converts); and was more about entering a covenant (commitment) toward building or growing the tribe of God and gathering Israel. As we read in the LDS Article of Faith number 10:
We [LDS Christians] believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent …
This is what separates Mormonism from other Christian sects, is that it is not so much a belief system, as it is a tribal familial religion: that began primarily as a quasi-ethnic religion of European converts who were considered members of the Lost Tribes of Israel.
Part of what led to the Mormon Church becoming a primarily European religion in the beginning was, as we saw above, most converts were of Scandinavian and British ancestry; who then practiced polygamy resulting in a new quasi-ethnic religious identity, as the Mormons of Utah. By the way the current trend to not use the term “Mormon” in the LDS Church is in my view a fad, as Joseph Smith himself endorsed the word Mormon. One reason I prefer the word Mormon is because it distinguishes LDS Christianity as a more quasi-ethnic tribal religion; which is what I think it is, especially in its original form.
What Smith was doing from an anthropological and/or mythological perspective, is that by saying that he himself is of Israelite lineage (according to the Book of Mormon), and by restoring Abrahamic covenants, he was generating a new People. See the article Peoplehood by Denver S.. In other words, it was not about early European converts engaging in gene swapping or “pneumatic gene therapy,” but it was about the continuation of the Israelite tribes through primarily the European peoples on the new additional holy land of the American continent. It was through the seed of Europeans that a new Ephraimite People would grow into Zion. As we see in the LDS Book of Abraham 2:11, it was the literal seed (sperm) of the Ephraimite European male body, that the world would be blessed with an Israelite tribe that would initiate the gathering of all the Lost Tribes onto the American continent. Joseph Smith himself, as a European of British and Irish descent, was in the new LDS revelations, considered a descendant of the Lost Tribes of Israel (Joseph of Egypt); and thus polygamy was in part about "bearing the souls of men" (see D&C 132:63): to produce a European Ephraimite and Josephite Peoplehood through Joseph Smith and other European Mormons who practiced polygamy in the 1800s.
As this article by Douglas E. Brinley explains:
… We came to this earth to qualify for eternal life, and marriage is one of the requirements. The highest degree of glory is a family kingdom (see D&C 131:4). …
… At the time of marriage, [LDS members] enter into the same covenant as did Abraham, in which he was promised innumerable seed (see Abraham 2:9–11). Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, “Those portions of [the Abrahamic covenant] which pertain to personal exaltation and eternal increase are renewed with each member of the house of Israel who enters the order of celestial marriage.” [13] Those keys were restored by Elias, who appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836. He restored the “dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed [with the gospel and the priesthood]” (D&C 110:12). In the Resurrection, with death no longer a factor, our seed shall be as innumerable as the “sand upon the seashore” (D&C 132:30). …
… Rearing the Children of God:
When we speak of “our children,” we mean the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. He places a great trust in us when He assigns His children to our custody. We are honored by the stewardship we are given to create bodies for His spirit children. Because women conceive, carry to term, and bear His offspring, their importance to God’s plan is critical. The Lord explains: “For [a wife is] given unto [her husband] to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for [her] exaltation in the eternal worlds, that [she] may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified” (D&C 132:63). …
This is in fact what literally happened, thousands of LDS converts journeyed from primarily Britain, Denmark and Sweden, to make up the main body of the Mormon membership in the 1800s. So for me, Mormonism is not a mere “belief system” but a quasi-ethnic Indo-European tribal religion: in the sense that the main body of Mormons in the original LDS Church in the 1800s believed themselves to be European-Ephraimites as actual Indo-Europeans. This does not mean that the future growth of the LDS Church will not continue to include more ethnicities, but the main body of the membership in the 1800s was produced by Europeans who practiced polygamy in Utah.
Being myself someone who descends from European Swedish and British polygamist Mormons on both sides of my family, whose direct ancestors contributed to building the LDS tribal identity in the 1800s, I can't help but feel a sense of pride in the growth of Mormonism. Just like a Jew who is still a Jew whether he practices Judaism or not, I am kind of Mormon in a quasi-ethnic sense even through I do not believe in every current Brighamite LDS Church policy or dogma. The way I see it, Mormonism is pretty much part of my ethnic heritage as it is the religious tradition handed down to me by my most recent lineal forefathers and foremothers, who found a tribal identity and meaning in life through Mormonism.
I was raised Mormon and served an LDS mission, yet I am currently, as of 2025, not a Brighamite LDS member (having voluntarily resigned my membership around 2005). Having learned all that I have which I share on this site, I find that if I were to entertain a version of "Christianity," I would be more drawn to the Mormon gospel than another version of Christianity, when in other groups I'm expected to be Jesus' "boyfriend" (see the comments by Ruslan above). I currently don't attend any church and I don't see myself ever choosing to "obey" the "covenant path" in the Brighamite LDS Church, but knowing my ancestry and how Mormonism is more affirmative of my masculine nature as a more Nietzscheanish pro-body philosophy, I have no problem being called a Jack Mormon or even an "Independent Mormon"; as a way of still somewhat identifying with my quasi-ethnic Mormon heritage. Because for me, Mormonism while a mythology in my view, has some psychological value in that it restores a sense of pride in my Indo-European ancestry, divinizes my masculine instincts, and celebrates my identity as an American. So for me it is less about "belief," and more about psychology, mythology and culture. In this sense of all religion being on at least some level about psychology, mythology and culture, then I am definitely more in favor of the pro-body, more pro-masculine philosophy of Mormonism, than other life philosophies like ones where I am considered a seeded male bride and celibacy is the ideal. I guess I consider myself in this sense at least a "Heritage Mormon," but not an Orthodox Mormon, similar to Orthodox Judaism versus Reform Judaism.
