Joseph Smith through Nietzschean Eyes

Most criticism of Joseph Smith comes from a particular paradigm or point of view. I am not here to defend Joseph Smith from these particular critics in this post. I am merely going to offer a philosophical question. What if we looked at Smith more from a Nietzschean lens (point of view). What if we ask if Joseph Smith exhibited the Stoic and Nietzschean virtues?

Consider the following Aphorisms from Part 5 of Friedrich Nietzsche's book, Beyond Good and Evil (Cambridge Texts 2002. Edited by Rolf-Peter Horstmann and Judith Norman, Translated by Judith Norman). Starting with Aphorism 200 (words in brackets my own):

… a person will have … conflicting (and often not merely conflicting) drives and value standards that fight with each other and rarely leave each other alone. A man like this … will typically be a weaker person: his most basic desire is for an end to the war that he is. His notion of happiness corresponds to that of a medicine and mentality of pacification (for instance the Epicurean or [ascetic] Christian); it is a notion of happiness as primarily rest, lack of disturbance, repletion, unity at last and the “Sabbath of Sabbaths,” to speak with the holy rhetorician Augustine, who was himself this sort of person. – But if conflict and war affect such a nature as one more stimulus and goad to life –, and if genuine proficiency and finesse in waging war with himself (which is to say: the ability to control and outwit himself) are inherited and cultivated along with his most powerful and irreconcilable drives, then what emerge are those amazing, incomprehensible, and unthinkable ones, those human riddles destined for victory and for seduction; Alcibiades and Caesar are the most exquisite expressions of this type (– and I will gladly set by their side that first European after my taste, the Hohenstaufen Frederick II), and among artists perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear in exactly those ages when that weaker type, with his longing for peace, comes to the fore. These types belong together and derive from the same set of causes.

I would argue that Joseph Smith was one of these men with powerful and irreconcilable drive; an amazing, incomprehensible, and unthinkable human riddle that was destined for victory and for seduction. Nietzsche continues in the next Aphorism 201:

… Until now [the 1800s], in the spirit of common utility, certain strong and dangerous drives such as enterprise, daring, vindictiveness, cunning, rapacity, and a domineering spirit must have been not only honored (under different names than these of course), but nurtured and cultivated (since, given the threats to the group, they were constantly needed against the common enemies). Now [in the puritan ascetic era], however, since there are no more escape valves for these drives, they are seen as twice as dangerous and, one by one, they are denounced as immoral and abandoned to slander. Now the opposite drives and inclinations come into moral favor; step by step, the herd instinct draws its conclusion. …

Thus, from this Nietzschean perspective, if Joseph Smith is interpreted as releasing the puritanical ascetic “lid” (or cap) suppressing the natural human drives -- in order to restore Christianity to its original Hebraic Roots -- then Joseph Smith can be seen as both affirming the God of the Hebrew Bible and affirming the energies of Life itself (a recurring and core principle of Nietzsche's philosophy). Nietzsche continues:

When the highest and strongest drives erupt in passion, driving the individual up and out and far above the average, over the depths of the herd conscience, the self-esteem of the community is destroyed – its faith in itself, its backbone, as it were, is broken: as a result, these are the very drives that will be denounced and slandered the most. A high, independent spiritedness, a will to stand alone, even an excellent faculty of reason, will be perceived as a threat. Everything that raises the individual over the herd and frightens the neighbor will henceforth be called evil; the proper, modest, unobtrusive, equalizing attitude and the mediocrity of desires acquire moral names and honors. …

As I argue in my blog post here, Joseph's highest and strongest drives were certainly erupting in passionate expression, driving him up and out and far above the average man. As a result, Joseph Smith was a threat to his Protestant neighbors and the mediocrity of their Puritanism and Monotono-theism with his restoration of the original Hebrew theology of a Plurality of Gods with God the Father having a body; combined with his revelations on the plurality of Super-couples (as gods) and the Temple Endowment of Power. 

The Sectarian Creeds spoke of a bodiless deity without parts and passions and the idea of being a prudish ascetic (Life-renunciant). In contrast to this, Joseph's theological philosophy unleashed the stop valves of the lifeward instincts; as he produced an outlet for the very energies of Life itself, and was thus the ultimate Life-affirming theologian par excellence. As he artistically bricolaged the release of the energies of Life: flowing through the body of the Saints as they imitated the Gods themselves; Gods who in fact had body parts and passions, as creative beings of glory and power; as divine Super-couples or Heavenly Parents.

In the next Aphorism 202, it is like Nietzsche secularly "prophesied" the coming Wokeism Movement. For if you just change some words around in Aphorism 202, exchanging in the word Wokeism, it is eerily familiar of current times. He even seems to have expected men like Joseph Smith to come along and offer a philosophical structure to overcome this anti-hierarchy leveling utopianism (that denies the unlevel/non-utopian hierarchical nature of Life itself); men like Joseph Smith, with the self-esteem and sheer will to overcome puritanical Protestantism with its acetic Augustinian despising of the body. As Nietzsche writes in the following Aphorism 203:

We who have a different faith – … where do we need to reach with our hopes? – Towards new philosophers, there is no alternative; towards spirits who are strong and original enough to give impetus to opposed valuations and initiate a revaluation … towards those sent out ahead; towards the men of the future who in the present tie the knots and gather the force that compels the will of millennia into new channels. To teach humanity its future as its will, as dependent on a human will, to prepare for the great risk and wholesale attempt at breeding and cultivation …: a new type of philosopher and commander will be needed for this some day, and whatever hidden, dreadful, or benevolent spirits have existed on earth will pale into insignificance beside the image of this type. The image of such leaders hovers before our eyes: – may I say this out loud, you free spirits? The conditions that would have to be partly created and partly exploited for them to come into being; the probable paths and trials that would enable a soul to grow tall and strong enough to feel the compulsion for these tasks; a revaluation of values whose new pressure and hammer will steel a conscience and transform a heart into bronze to bear the weight of a responsibility like this; and, on the other hand, the necessity of such leaders, the terrible danger that they could fail to appear or simply fail and degenerate – these are our real worries and dark clouds, do you know this, you free spirits? These are the heavy, distant thoughts and storms that traverse the sky of our lives. There are few pains as intense as ever having seen, guessed, or sympathized while an extraordinary person ran off course and degenerated … In a single glance he will comprehend everything that could be bred from humanity, given a favorable accumulation and intensification of forces and tasks; he will know with all the prescience of his conscience how humanity has still not exhausted its greatest possibilities, and how often the type man has already faced mysterious decisions and new paths …

In my view, this new type of philosopher and commander, in many ways fits the life and accomplishments of Joseph Smith (which I showed in the links to Nietzsche's words in the aphorism above, directing the reader to examples of Joseph Smith's innovative creativity, leadership roles, and accomplishments). 

This is not to say that Joseph Smith was completely Nietzschean. Obviously Joseph Smith parted ways with Nietzsche's attack on Judeo-Christian compassion, equal rights, democracy, and the scientific enlightenment; as Smith instead supported American democracy and a philosophical naturalism based on Newtonian science and the philosophy of Thomas Dick and others; and Joseph encouraged seeking knowledge in the best books, and championed fair-minded equality through his Dream of Zion. Yet there is some overlapping consistency in the two men: the consistent rejection of Augustinianism, mediocrity and idleness; their uncapping of the body's energies that ever bubble up and directing them in a more healthy direction rather than repressing the instincts; so that the body does not turn in on itself and despise itself and attack itself; by directing those bodily drives outward through a religion-making pathway of power and fecundity.

Joseph Smith as Artistic Creator of New Values

 In the introduction to the 2002 Cambridge Press Edition of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, the book is summarized as:

… in its most basic structure [Beyond Good and Evil] is quite simple and straightforward: if there are no values “out there,” in the sense in which we believe stars and other physical objects to be “out there” and if, at the same time, we cannot do without values, then there must be some value-creating capacity within ourselves which is responsible for the values we cherish and which organizes our lives. Though presumably we are all endowed with this capacity,[16] there are very few of us who manage to create values powerful enough to force people into acceptance and to constitute cultural and social profiles. To create such constitutive values seems to be, according to Nietzsche, the prerogative of real philosophers (not philosophy professors), of unique artists (if there are any), of even rarer founders of religions, and, above all, of institutions that develop out of the teaching of creative individuals, i.e., of science, philosophy, and theology. Thus, anyone interested in the function and the origin of values should scrutinize the processes which enabled these persons and institutions to create values. …

Since Nietzsche himself considered the historical Jesus a values creator, then I think it's possible that Nietzsche would have considered Joseph Smith an artistic philosopher and values-creator. Especially in Joseph Smith's pursuit of improving upon the form of Christianity which Nietzsche called "Platonism for the masses." For Joseph clearly instituted a spiritual physicalism absent from many Protestant and Catholic forms of Christianity that despised the body. Just as scholarship shows that the writers of the New Testament were engaged in what they call Narrative Scripturalization, I think Joseph Smith was equally involved in the same endeavor in producing The Book of Mormon. 

As I have discussed on this blog, Joseph Smith created new values in seeing the sensual body as good, and he replaced the emphasis on poverty as a virtue with the value of gaining riches in order to do good and alleviate suffering and poverty while establishing the ideal of Zion. In contrast to the more martyr-centric traditions in Christianity, Joseph Smith generated the value of a more Muscular Christianity. 

The Restored Ekklesia & The Utah-based Church as Corporation and Social Club

As I see it, there are basically two Mormon Churches. There is the "Institutional Church" that sometimes uses high pressure sales tactics and is often basically a "high demand" religion; for example, putting pressure on members to pay tithing and attend invasive boundary-violating "worthiness" interviews before they're eligible to enter temples; which they are told are required to enter the highest Degree of Glory.  This Corporate Church is not the "true church" spoken of in LDS scripture. This is a social club run by a Corporation. 

Then there is the "true church" which is all disciples of Christ collectively. The word "church" in Greek is ekklesia, which just means assembly or a gathering, or a group. When the Doctrine and Covenants talks about the only true and living church it is referring to the ekklesia (assembled Christians/Saints); it's what Paul calls the "body of Christ." I believe that the true church (or ekklesia) is separate from the Corporate/Institutional Church. 

Many LDS scholars themselves distinguish between the little "c" church (ekklesia) and the big "C" Church (the Corporate structure with its correlation committee, etc.).

The “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth ...” (D&C 1:30), can be translated or interpreted as Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6). So Jesus is the living way of truth in embodied form and living example; hence, the only "true church/ekklesia" would be the only ekklesia with Christ at the Head directing His body (the ekklesia) which would entail somebody like Paul revealing the voice of Christ as the way and the truth.

 The ekklesia that formed through the revelations of Joseph Smith were on par with Paul for the believer. This made The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the mid 1800s, the only Christ-driven ekklesia acting out the spiritual gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12, with a spiritual leader (Joseph Smith) acting just as Paul did. I interpret D&C 1:30 as Christ is the living way of truth as expressed in His spiritual body on earth (the ekklesia or the Body of Christ), which is His will being manifest through the Gifts of the Spirit; including the revealing of the voice of Christ just as Paul did. The "church" is Christ's Mind/Spirit (or Will) dwelling in human tabernacles (the saints) and living and speaking through them as the Head of this collective body of limbs He directs (See 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; John 15:5). So what we have in the New Testament is the language of Christ as the Head of a body, like the trunk of a tree and the branches as described in the Gospel of John. Therefore the church (ekklesia) is a spiritual organism like a tree trunk with roots and each branch carrying the same sap flowing from the same roots and tree trunk. We see that throughout all LDS Scripture, the word "church"  in context means ekklesia and and can be translated "spiritual organism."

 D&C 1:30 is thus saying that the assembly of Latter Day Saints under Joseph Smith's apostolic guidance (just as Paul accomplished) was the only truly living spiritual organism, because it was the only ekklesia at that time that was (for the believers) legitimately engaged in prophetic prophesying and revealing new scripture through the voice of the Lord. All the other (or most of the) Christian sects were claiming a closed canon. 

Joseph Smith took seriously 1 Corinthians 12:31 (EXB), "But You should truly want to have [eagerly desire; be zealous for] the greater gifts. ..." The greater Gifts of being a prophet, apostle, teacher, ect., in the Body of Christ, was something Joseph Smith obviously eagerly desired as he stepped into the role of prophesying prophet, seer and revelator; and backed up his claims with an outpouring of revelations and directions from the Lord.

 Joseph Smith, like the apostle Paul, was claiming to be a conduit of the living Christ and thus Mormons believe(d) that Christ was speaking through Joseph Smith to his spiritual organism, His body, the collective Body of Christ. So that, for the Latter-day Saint, the truth of Christ's headship (the True Vine guiding the Branches in Alma 16:17) was speaking through his only legitimate conduit Joseph Smith (just like through Paul in the 50s AD) to reveal new scripture and the Restoration; in other words, Joseph was given the gift of prophetic utterance to Christ's unified-body (His spiritual organism or the "church"). Joseph Smith simply had the greater Gifts of the Spirit just as Paul had before him. Both were "spiritual masters" (See 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation by Christopher Mount).

This did not mean that other saints did not have access to the same spiritual gifts as Joseph Smith. For example, the Lord encouraged Oliver Cowdery to have the gift of seership and translation but he was not ready with that gift (see D&C 9). But just as the Apostle Paul did not tolerate rival revelators to his gospel (Gal. 1:8;  5: 10-12), nor did Joseph. As the article, Seer Stones and Prophetic Authority by John Turner, explains:

In September 1830, church member Hiram Page (husband of David Whitmer’s sister) challenged Smith’s authority with a “roll of papers,” revelations he had received through a seer stone ... Apparently Oliver Cowdery (Smith’s principal Book of Mormon scribe) and the Whitmers were pondering the validity of Page’s “papers.” ... 

... In response to the challenge, Smith dictated a revelation that clarified that “no one shall be appointed to Receive commandments & Revelations in this Church excepting my Servent Joseph.” Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s principal Book of Mormon scribe, had previously sought the ability to translate like Smith. This revelation added that Cowdery would serve as Aaron to God’s latter-day Moses but would himself “not write by way of Commandment.” Hiram Page received a harsher rebuke. The “things which he hath written from that Stone,” the Lord stated, “are not of me & … Satan deceiveth him.” Through this revelation, Smith affirmed that no objects were necessary as conduits for revelation and that his prophetic authority was unique.[Revelation of September 1830 to Oliver Cowdery, D&C 28:2.]

A church conference toward the end of September 1830 affirmed the recent revelation and affirmed Smith’s as “seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” ...

... Over the course of Mormon history, other would-be prophets have challenged  church leaders with claims of revelation. In the mid-1840s, James Strang mocked Brigham Young for his unwillingness to produce written revelations. ... Members and outsiders alike sometimes wonder why contemporary Latter-day Saint leaders no longer bring forth the “word of the Lord” as did Joseph Smith ...

I think it is obvious that the reason why the Utah-based leaders do not bring forth "the word of the Lord" like Paul and Joseph did, is because they are actually not prophetic seers nor revelators. They are leaders of a corporation and a social club. Nevertheless, the written "word of the Lord" from the apostles, Paul and Joseph Smith, (and the other writings of the Standard Works) is still respected as the ultimate authority (above even the teachings or opinions of General Authorities) in the Utah Church.

The way I see it, the Restored Ekklesia is different than say the Protestant Ekklesia. There are unique teachings and doctrines in Joseph Smith's revelations, like the Second Article of Faith, Degrees of Glory, the "Muscular Christianity" in the Book of Mormon, and God the Father's body and his more sex positive theology (that counteracted Augustine's "despising of the body"). So I identify as a member of the restored ekklesia because I have not found a better representation of the Christ-experience, nor a better synthesis of the Old and New Testament, in any other Christian sect or option. I am currently an Independent Mormon. But I recognize multiple options and ways of expressing belief in the restored ekklesia within the Latter Day Saint Movement.

It is obvious to me that the current Utah-based Corporate Church is not the organic ekklesia of Christ with a "spiritual master" speaking forth the will and word of the Lord (like the apostle Paul and Joseph Smith did). They are not actually prophets prophesying, or seers, or revelators. Instead, the current leaders of the Utah-based Mormon Church are basically a board of directors, or CEOs of a corporation, acting as gatekeepers with the "keys" to the antique shop holding Joseph Smith's Revelations, acting as basically managers of a social club. This does not mean however, that they don't often speak about important truths and ethical principles that if followed will improve the lives of individuals and families. But it does mean they are fallible and should not be followed blindly.

To sum up, the "institutional church" sometimes manipulates members, gaslights them, and puts unhealthy pressure on them to conform to "doctrinal orthodoxy" if they, say want to baptize their kid, or not be excommuicated, as John Dehlin experienced in 2014. This corporate-church is not the "true church." It is a social club and a corporation. But then there is the "true church" which is all disciples of Christ (or saints) collectively. In other words, the Mormon Church/Institution could dissolve tomorrow and the Restored Ekklesia (believers in the LDS Standard Works) would still exist; and thus the true church/Christ's "church" (ekklesia) would still be on the earth.

So I believe that the true church (or ekklesia or the saints) is separate from the corporate/institutional church. So I expect the Utah-based leaders (or Brigham-led successors) to make mistakes and say misguided things. They are not the "true church" anymore than the Pope or the Vatican represents the "true church." For me, the true church is the collective witness of the ancient Hebrews and the Saints in the Scriptures (Old and New) that embody the word/seed of Christ (see LDS Topical Guide Seed of Christ). As this article points out, in the Book of Mormon, when the "Zoramites first approached Alma, they had a simple question: How can we worship God when we are not able to go to church?" We then learn "how they should plant the seed, or the word of which he had spoken, which he said must be planted in their hearts; or in what manner they should begin to exercise their faith (Alma 33:1)." In other words, they did not need to "go to church" (as if the "church" were a building) because they were the church: the seed/word implanted in them that bears fruit (see Alma 32). Also see this excellent article Who is the Church: What does the Book of Mormon teach? by latterdaythinking.org, that explains that the "church" is each individual Latter Day Saint and not the church leaders or Corporate Church in Utah.

The Utah-based Mormon Leaders do much that is good which I have discussed on this blog; but they  also do much that is harmful because they are fallible and get caught up in the tradition of their fathers and are often the blind leading the blind: for example, their policy of withholding the priesthood to those of African descent, due to the traditions of men mingled with Scripture. It was not until 2013, that these false traditions (passed on by The Brethren in the Utah Church) were finally disavowed and declared mere folklore (in the essay Race and the Priesthood). They are not excused from their wrongs just because they say and do some good. 

I do not believe in trusting in any religious leader completely; in fact, this was the main message of Jesus as he was often against the religious leaders of his day. I treat them all like a manager at a clubhouse. The clubhouse manager may have the "keys" and can make the final decisions for the club, but that does not mean that the clubhouse manager(s) can't sometimes be rude and insensitive, controlling, power-hungry, jerk(s). Or do manipulative things and not respect your boundaries. 

Just as the Jewish Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders of his day, I see no reason not to criticize the Mormon leaders so that things can change from within and the Mormon Church can do better. This is one of the reasons why I am currently still voluntarily resigned from the LDS church and have not officially rejoined but just attend sacrament occasionally. Because I value my freedom of speech. The problem is that the current cultural situation in the Utah-based Mormon Church is that you are not allowed to criticize your church leaders even if that criticism is true. If you are too public or vocal about your criticisms (or disagreement with Orthodoxy/"Bretherenism"), they will likely try to excommunicate you; which could damage your family relationships and your reputation. However, to be fair there are many who tow the line between orthodoxy (loyalty to the Bretheren) and seeking to reform (or improve) the Institutional Church for the better (through what is called "trickle up revelation"). There is even a Mormon movement of signers of the Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto, that seeks to be loyal to the Brethren but also avoid Religious Fundamentalism. The Midnight Mormon podcast has many episodes on the fallibility of the leaders.

All of this does not mean that the Utah-based Corporate Church (or the Brigham sect) does not contain the restored ekklesia or the Body of Christ within its legalistic formalism. For each Utah-based LDS member who believes in the restored gospel is a member of the restored ekklesia. Again, as even many Maxwell Institute scholars point out, there is the little "c" church (ekklesia) and the "C" Church/Institution. Keep in mind, that Jesus did not leave his Jewish religion but remained loyal to Judaism and the Torah, even while arguing with and disagreeing with the religious leaders of his day. So I don't see why a Latter-day Saint can't be loyal to Mormonism and the Standard Works even if they disagree with their religious leaders. One has to just keep in mind that just as Jesus was called in before the Sanhedrin, criticizing Utah-based Church leaders can get you called into a disciplinary court and possibly excommunicated.

I see nothing wrong with somebody realizing that the current Utah-based leaders are not actually "prophetic spiritual seers and revelators" like Paul and Joseph, but still treat the Utah-based organization like a Social Club and choose to follow the rules and conform (just as they would in any Social Club) out of respect and common decency, because they simply have not found a better Christian church or social club. After all, two prominent Ex-Mormons (John Dehlin and Shawn McCraney) both agree that you're not going to find a better Christian "Social Club" than the Utah-based LDS Church. 

So I for one would never discourage anyone from being an active member of the Utah-based Church if it is psychologically healthy for them to do so. Even if they were a non-orthodox believer there are websites to help one maintain their membership and fit in and not be excommunicated or disfellowshipped or feel ostracized. See staylds.com for navigating your membership as an unorthodox member. For finding ways to believe in the Restoration even if you don't take a lot of the supernatural claims literally, see the website churchistrue.com.

The "Independent (Free-range) Mormon" Defined & Explained: A Case for the Option of Nondeminational or "Free-Range" Mormonism

I want to begin by saying up front that this isn't an attempt to encourage any LDS member to stop going to church or adopt this way of being Mormon. As I write this in 2026, I have been out of the church for over a decade and have gone through various phases: from being an ex-mormon atheist to trying to be some other version of a Christian visiting Protestant Churches and studying the Eastern Orthodox Church. In this search for a spiritual grounding, what I've come to realize is that I am at my core both intellectually and culturally a Mormon. For example, see my bullet points here on why I am a Mormon and not a Catholic or Protestant or an Atheist, etc. 

This introductory post is meant to clarify that I'm only presenting this way of being Mormon as an option for those for whom it works for them. For those who are happy and content and thriving in any Mormon restoration branch or denomination, whether it be the Brighamite sect or RLDS, etc., I fully support and endorse their activity and have no desire to discourage their participation or even their tithe paying. 

I thought about calling myself an Edgy Mormon based on Christian Kimball's book Living on the Inside of the Edge. I like his approach of maintaining his Mormon identity and participating in his ward, which I too am open to doing and found his advice useful. But I choose not to use that term "Edgy Mormon" from his book because unfortunately in my opinion he goes too far in his book in the direction of over focusing on extreme far-Left political ideology. Being someone who is more politically Independent and often "center right" depending on the issue, and my agreeing more with the core principles, values and ideals of the LDS Proclamation on the Family, it just doesn't feel right using that label Edgy Mormon because I don't want to be inaccurately defined as being on the political far-Left. So a more neutral term for me is Independent Mormon or other variants like Non-denominational Mormon or Free-range Mormon. 

But if I am not fully committed to any particular sect or branch of Mormonism, why do I even bother identifying as a Mormon one might ask? Well first of all because, as I explain here, it's in my DNA as my heritage and my its my quasi-ethnic cultural identity. Again, see my bullet points here on why I am a Mormon in my worldview, and not a Catholic or Protestant or an Atheist, etc. I have tried out nearly every other worldview or existential or spiritual path, and Mormonism just fits my beliefs and ideals best. As of 2026, I have even begun to engage in a form of Mormon spiritual practice where I enjoy learning more about my Mormon Pioneer ancestors. I am currently listening to a Modern English version of the Book of Mormon and I am reading the Doctrine and Covenants in Plain English by Ben Kucenski. In other words, I have made reading Mormon Scripture part of my spiritual practice which gives me peace and a feeling of existential grounding that is working for me right now. I also like hanging out with Mormons who are kind people in general. I listen to Mormon podcasts like Ward Radio, A Thoughtful Faith, and Gospel Tangents. I enjoy studying biblical scholarship and LDS history.

As of today, I personally don't think being Mormon requires your name is on the roles of any particular denomination. After all, I'm related to Oliver Cowdery and he resigned his membership and went on to even join a Methodist congregation and yet he retained his "Mormon identity" and belief structure for about a decade before he rejoined the Brighamite sect just before he died. So was Oliver not a Mormon during that decade when his name was not on the roles of the Brighamite sect? No, I don't think so. Oliver remained a "Mormon" all that time. So while I respect and admire Brighamite Mormons for being loyal and dedicated to that particular denominational institution, I don't think my name on any church roles determines whether or not I am Mormon or not. I decide that, or at least my core beliefs, values, ancestry, and character does.

So I am sharing my journey and in the cases where a Brighamite LDS member has what is often called a "crisis of faith" and can longer bring themselves to believe in some or all of the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church, this blog series presents the option of basically not "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" by being an Independent / Free-range Mormon. In other words, I will be presenting a way to still maintain one's "Mormon" identity independently of any particular LDS Restoration sect or denomination. I wrote this information for myself and intend this to help anyone else interested in maintaining ties to their LDS heritage even if they choose to not be an "active" LDS member in any particular LDS sect. 

I am writing for those who like me have chosen not to obey the current policies in the Brighamite LDS sect within its Manuals. Those who have, as Christian Kimball describes in his book, differentiated from a parent-to-child dynamic and a codependent mentality, which can occur among some (no not all) LDS members. Who are also those who like me also do not want to go down the road of being "anti-Mormonism" and abandon their Mormon heritage entirely. So "Independent Mormoning" can be a  "third option" in navigating the maintaining of a connection to your heritage but as a kind of free-range Mormon. So just like a Protestant Christian who chooses not to officially join a particular sect of Protestantism and instead calls themselves a Non-denominational Christian, I consider myself right now a Non-denominational Mormon. Interestingly, someone even published a Nondenominational Edition of the Book of Mormon (see video here).

Merriam-webster's online dictionary includes in their definition of the word free-range the following:

Like a lighthouse, this parenting style provides a stable source of guidance without being over-involved, as seen with helicopter parenting, or too hands-off, like with free-range parenting.

—Alex Vance, Parents, 21 Dec. 2025

Some people like to be micro-managed, and if that’s you, then a free-range environment is not good for you.— 

Susan Johnston, Rolling Stone, 27 June 2024

Using these definition examples above, I think this captures the core difference in personality and worship style between those who feel comfort being essentially "helicopter parented" by an over-involved religious leadership telling one what to eat and drink, what to wear, do or not do on Sundays, and how much to pay them, etc. Some people like to be micro-managed by their religion, and if that’s you, then all the power to you! If it works for you do it. As for me, at least right now I prefer to be a free-range Mormon. 

As a free-range Mormon, I feel free to range over and explore all opinions and versions of Mormonism and visit any Mormon sect or group. I can take advice from a Brighamite leader but also freely reject their advice if it doesn’t align with scripture or my values. I can attend a Brighamite ward one Sunday and have a coffee the next Sunday morning with a never-Mormon friend. I a free to use the term "Mormon"!

 I am free to range over and read a Modern English translation of the Book of Mormon or read the LDS version online. I am free to range over to an RLDS church service or social activity somewhere as well as a Brighamite ward or social activity. For all the Restoration branches and movements are part of my Mormon Heritage and part of my quasi-ethnic Mormon identity. 

A key component of Independent-Mormonism (or Free-Range Mormonism) is distinguishing between the "philosophy of Mormonism" versus the different LDS sects, as articulated well by Kwaku El in his discussion with Carah Burrel in 2024 (seen here). My own personal version of Independent Mormonism is a focus on the original philosophy of Mormonism through primarily the Smith-Pratt Lens. As I see it, one's LDS heritage and that grounding Smith-Pratt philosophy is independent of the differing denominational corporate policies of the differing LDS denominations.

Another key component of Independent (Free-range) Mormonism is the emphasis on Scripture-focused Mormonism, which I discuss here. 

Scripture-focused Peoplehood & Not Sola Scriptura and Creedalism:

The way I see it, the LDS Scripture Cannon contain some Protestant sounding doctrines and ideas, but the emphasis on living oracles akin to the revelatory Moses and the apostle Paul, as an open canon, and gathering the tribes of Israel, and deification (through grace through the merits of Christ alone) makes Mormonism unique and not just another version of Protestantism.

I am "Mormon" and not Protestant because I don't see any reason to justify a "closed cannon," and I value many of the teachings and revelations through Joseph Smith and his Americanized version of Christianity. I appreciate and value the innovations in theology and practice, that turned Mormonism into something closer to ancient Israel "tribally," and closer to Eastern Orthodox Christianity in hierarchical structure and theosis theology. 

The Heavens Aren't Closed, But the LDS Cannon is Full

As they say history tends to repeat itself, and as I see it every so often there emerges a unique individual with the talent and creativity and the means to reveal the Divine Realm through their particular personality and culture. I believe that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible had that talent, as well as the Apostle Paul, and so did Joseph Smith. Just like the Cambrian explosion in organic evolution, I think there are  times in history when there's a spiritual explosion of revelatory innovation, midrash, and scripture-making; like the Moses-like figures in the Bible or the Apostle Paul, and then things peter out and the revelations slow down, and not that the heavens are closed but the cannon has become full, i.e. there is sufficient revealed truths to proceed as is with the scriptures we have. So then there is more of a guardianship of those canonized revelations that always takes place historically. We saw that with Jesus defending the authority of the Torah as he only added to scripture new ways of interpreting former texts. Then Paul exploded on the scene as a midrash master innovator. Then all of sudden the cannon was full, Jesus and Paul had filled the spiritual cup of the people it seems, and so then was formed the New Testament Canon and a lack of revelatory voices followed for two thousand years. Then Joseph Smith burst onto the scene revealing new scripture which was then cannonized as the LDS Standard Works; and then once again a slowing down of revelation and new scripture occurred after Joseph was killed, so that future Mormon Leaders became mere guardians of the revelations rather than offering new revelations like Joseph did. So that today, as I see it, the LDS cannon is full and sufficient for our good; and so there's been a lack of revelation for two hundred years because we have sufficient scripture to guide ourselves by wisdom and personal revelation by the dictates of our own conscience.

Plural Marriage Fulfilled It's Purpose of forming a Quasi-Ethnic Tribe by 1900

In my document Toward A Theology of the Body and my blog series here, I make the case that the early LDS priesthood hierarchy, provided a structure that would eventually bolster the practice of polygamy; which I think had a temporary goal and design to it: which was to change the consciousness of Mormons (from 1844 to 1900) toward embracing the idea that God the Father had a physical body of flesh which belief made sensuality and passions godly again. In my view, the process of basically mimicking the biblical polygamists Abraham, Jacob and David in the Old Testament, my own LDS ancestors produced a quasi-ethnic Peoplehood. I think this was the main reason for LDS polygamy and you can see the fruits of my Mormon Pioneer ancestors in the quasi-ethnic tight knit Mormon communities you can see and experience that are thriving today. In contrast, when I have attended Protestant churches they do not give me that feeling of being part of a quasi-ethnic tribe, a people (that I feel among all the LDS sects I have visited and spent time with), because these Protestants focus more on "beliefism" and their Creeds and lack what Mormons have, a feeling of tribal cultural identity and Peoplehood that forged in Missouri, Nauvoo and then Utah, etc.

So after my "faith crisis" and not agreeing with all the tenets of any of the LDS sects, as I write this today in 2026, I choose to still be Mormon but in my own way. I am happier being an independent Mormon instead of being a cynical and nihilistic exmormon atheist.  

I choose to see the mostly good in Mormonism, both philosophically and culturally. My own Pioneer ancestors in Nauvoo and Utah in the 1800s formed a tribal Peoplehood and I feel good being part of that "tribe," even if only independently on the perimeter. For I am a product of this identity formation as my own Mormon Pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family practiced plural marriage and funnelled my Anglo-Scandinavian nature and cultural history into the making of the Mormon People.

As an Independent Mormon I respect and appreciate my own ancestors practicing of plural marriage and what that accomplished. But I also don't need to literally believe in polygamy if I don't want to. The fact is D&C 132 was never actually canonized by Joseph Smith himself. In fact, just before Smith died in 1844, he edited and approved of a final canon of LDS Scripture in 1844 that did not include the D&C 132 while he re-edited and re-cannonized the 1835 D&C 101 and the Lectures on Faith. This to me shows that Joseph Smith was simply exploring ideas in the 1840s, and we don't know what he would or would not have done if he had survived after 1844. All we know for certain is that what he decided to canonize as official doctrine was the theology in the original LDS Scriptures, for example the 1835 Lectures on Faith and the original 1835 D&C 101 (that declared monogamy the official doctrine of the LDS Church).  

When Joseph Smith was alive, D&C 89 on the Word of Wisdom was not practiced as a "commandment or constraint." All of this changed after 1900, when in 1921 the top LDS Leaders removed the original doctrine of the Lectures on Faith; and being influenced by the temperance movement and Prohibition in the 1900s, the Brighamite Brethren changed the original meaning of section 89 by making the Word of Wisdom a commandment and constraint on the membership after 1921.

Defining Correlated Manualism in contrast to Independent Mormonism:

Since a picture is worthless 1000 words, here is an image summarizing what I call Correlated Manualism: 

(Source)

I agree with all the words in the diagram above individually, except the word "obey." Note that in the image above the "Doctrine of Christ" is basically defined as obeying the Correlated Manuals (with the phrase "repent and obey"), with repenting meaning: subjecting oneself to "worthiness" interviews where a Correlation approved male Priest, a Bishop and/or Stake President acting as judge and jury over you behind closed doors, determines your worthiness (perfect purity) or unworthiness (impurity); as you are labeled as such (essentially pure or stained in their eyes); and if labeled "unworthy," one is subjected to whatever humiliating and punitive ecclesiastical punishments the priesthood holder decides to impose upon you based on his subjective assessment and personality type. Correlated Manualism is thus linked to Perfectionism and Purity Culture. 

The Correlated View emphasizes exclusive Temple rites, with the Brighamite Brethren claiming to be the only ones with the authority to control and change the rituals. They also control what is and what is not considered scripture without regard to the original doctrine of Common Consent. In Correlated Manualism, there is demanded large amounts of money (tithing) from members as mandatory before the member is allowed to enter and receive the ritual ordinances which are said to be required to enter the highest degrees of heaven. Thus the Correlated Manual model of "obey us or else," entails receiving their allegedly necessary ritual ordinances in order to be able to enter through the "pearly gates" (with angels standing guard), before experiencing God the Father. As they claim to have the sole authority to administer these necessary rituals to get into the highest degree of heaven. This is just one version of Mormonism. I am arguing that there are other versions of Mormonism that are not "high demand religions," but provide a greater degree of freedom based on the dictates of one's own conscience (rather than blind obedience to the dictates of the will and whims of any Brethren in any of the LDS sects).

Free-Range (Independent) Mormonism" vs. Correlated Manualism:

A good example of Independent Mormonism is the more simplistic Doctrine of Christ in the Book of Mormon as explained by Jacob IsBell in his YouTube video The Doctrine of Christ versus The Covenant Path. Note that I don't agree with every historical or theological position of Jacob IsBell, but on this particular subject I agree with him. 

For more details on the concept of the simple Doctrine of Christ and how it relates to Free-Range Mormonism, see my two blog series below:

• Theosis: The Doctrine of Grace & Deification in The Restoration 

•  "Worthy Already" by Grace: The True Meaning of Sin & Repentance

Here is a bullet point summary of how Uncorrelated Free-Range Mormonism is different from Correlated Manualism:

• Free-Range Independent Mormonism (or FIM) is more like a Farm-like "Ecclesia" than a caged Zoo.

• FIM is focused more on a respect for LDS Scripture as poetic art as a transformative Ethos. So that it is more about an inside out transformation of character by "feasting on the words of Christ" in Scripture. Rather than following a check list.

• In FIM, decisions are based more on the dictates of one's own conscience rather than just obeying the will of the leaders of a Restorationist Denomination.

• FIM respects the Law of Common Consent. This means that no Mormon sect can declare new doctrine or policy or "Thus saith the Lord" without claiming to have received an actual revelation and having it voted on and passed by common consent and then canonized in Scripture by the body of believers in said sect.

• FIM abides by the actual LDS Scriptures which taught paying tithing on your surplus and it is voluntary and not mandatory to go the temple and earn access to the celestial heavens.

• Garments are optional and not necessary. For in the Independent Mormon perspective, LDS Garments were designed to be reminders of the Freemasonic rituals (like the penalty oaths that were removed in 1990 from the Brighamite LDS ritual), which in and of themselves were designed to keep polygamy a secret. Now that polygamy has ended after about 1900, garments, as a product of polygamy, makes no sense as a requirement by a Restorationist Denomination. However, if one chooses to wear them voluntarily without threat of losing their Temple recommend for example, I fully support that.

• The Word of Wisdom in D&C 89 was originally intended as "wise advice" and the text says clearly that it was not a commandment nor a constraint. Thus, when the Brighamite LDS sect decided to reject the original plain meaning of D&C 89 in the year 1921, and turn the advice of the Word of Wisdom into instead a commandment (and something forbidden by the Brighamite Brethren), and made it into a constraint on LDS members: they began to mimic the corruption in the Catholic Church, which led to the Protestant Reformation. This authoritarian and controlling move also mimicked the Pharisees who Jesus condemned for changing the meaning of the Jewish Scriptures with their added traditions and policies.

Note that another option to the person who rejects Correlated Manualism but doesn't want to be a Nondenominational Mormon is that one can choose to be part of a non-Brighamite Restoration Church as there are many sects and denominations. 

In conclusion, my goal in this introductory post is to help those having a crisis of faith and no longer wish to attend the Brighamite sect, by showing how they have options and exmormon atheism is only one of those options. They don't need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," they can maintain their cultural identity and Mormon heritage and appreciate the Mormon philosophy and Scriptures on their own terms as an Independent Mormon mormon. To be clear, I am not encouraging the active and happy LDS member (in any of the LDS denominations) to become an Independent Mormon, this is only for those who have already experienced a crisis of faith but want to hang on to their tribal identity as a Mormon. 

Without Religion: A Poem on Nihilism vs. Religious Hope

 In the following poem I reference the movie Blade Runner, the TV series True Detective, Season 1, passages from Shakespeare, quotes from Neil deGrasse Tyson, Albert Camus, Nietzche, Bertrand Russell, and the New Testament, etc.

Without Religion

A life without religion 

Is a life without the infinite:

The splendor of theater, 

The joys of art and poetry

A life without 

spiritual camaraderie,

synergy and serenity; 

without meaning, purpose,

and cosmic identity

A life of existential anxiety,

unyielding despair, 

A tale told by an idiot

signifying nothing

Thinking you are no-thing

Not a real self

just dust in the wind

A ripple on the surface of

an abyss of Nothingness

Ripped out of existence and 

sent into life's thresher 

A Blade Runner replicant 

A simulation of a person

A cellular robot

Thinking "meat"

A mere "meat computer"

A gene xerox machine 

Reduced to working parts

Then dismantled and discarded

Leaving no trace behind

Just recycled star shrapnel

a mere blip on the cosmic calendar 

Such dreams of nothing but empty space

Running for nothing as there is no race

Nothing static, nothing real 

just pushing a boulder up a hill

Until your nauseated spiraling into an abyss 

With no up or down, no Right or Wrong 

as a cosmic orphan, with no real Home

stuck in a night lair of Unbelief

A swirling sinkhole of nihilistic despair 

Up, up, upwards climbs the soul

Out of the Abyss, soaring into a role 

A life of religion is to be buoyed up

in a theatrical drama that trains you up

Dusts you off and says you are somebody

By trusting in a realm of Something!

that empowers your life 

With beatific ends in sight

Running with purpose and a cosmic goal

with an eternal role of having a soul

With a deeply rooted identity, 

connected to a People, a Story 

spanning thousands of years 

of trial-and-error, tradition and 

belonging, sprouting a Good Culture

Scriptures are a "Love Poem to Reality"

Religious art and music uplifts the soul

With a grand Ethos that elevates and inspires

To do what's Right with a Meaning in Life 

Spiritualizes thoughtfulness, fairness, and care

Generates love, joy, peace and unity, 

Ongoing ethical synergy 

A lasting serenity

and a sense of sublimity 

within the Dreams of Eternity

Mormonism as a Pragmatic Existentialst Remedy to Nihilism

It has occurred to me that even if one's study of science and philosophy led them away from a literal belief in religion and more toward some form of nihilism; Mormonism, as a Life Philosophy, can provide some existential utility. Similar to Nietzsche's active nihilism, a "Mormon Pragmatism" or "Mormon Existentialism" as an anti-nihilism, would see Joseph Smith as a dramatic artist (as Fawn Brodie put it) and a religion-making genius (as Harold Bloom put it). On this view, similar to Nietzsche, Joseph Smith would be seen as being concerned about the growing societal degeneration in his day from the versions of atheism and nihilism in the 1800s. Joseph Smith's theological work therefore can be interpreted as in part a way to counteract the growing nihilism of his day. From this perspective, LDS philosophy can act as an antidote to passive nihilism and negative attitudes of life such as Schopenhauerianism (or philosophical pessimism, as depicted by Rust Chole). Just as Nietzsche (and others) counteract philosophical pessimism, we can see Joseph Smith doing something similar in regards to the growing skepticism and nihilism of his day. For more details and scholarly support for this point of view, see Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism by Robert N. Hullinger.

Part of Nietzsche's solution, or remedy, to the psychological ills of passive-nihilism was his writing of

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which he described as a "holy book" (as he referred to it once in a letter), and what he called the "fifth gospel." The goal of this "atheistic gospel" was to get his readers to fully embrace mortalism and his life-affirming dionysian pantheism; and the focus on breeding the Superhuman species, which would give "meaning to the earth" and overcome nihilism.

In writing his Zarathrustra, Nietzsche was appealing to the "spiritual side" (nonscientific camber of the brain) of his readers, as in his goal was for his readers to basically transfer their spiritual beliefs in the monotheistic Deity and hope in the afterlife, into instead hope in the future Superhumans. Thus, not being merely rational and scientific (or left-brained), but allowing their spiritual side or artistic creative side of themselves the organic release of these "spiritual" forces of imaginative hopefulness within them through the earthly pursuit of a more noble species (the Superhumans) in the ongoing process of cosmic evolution.

I find that from an "existentialist perspective," Joseph Smith was doing something similar to Nietzche (in trying to overcome passive nihilism) with his own book of scripture, as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ"; which in part was a way to fight against the tides of nihilism in his day (See Joseph Smith and Modernism by Richard Lyman Bushman). By the 1840s, Joseph's ultimate remedy or solution to the rising tides of nihihism, was to get his readers to embrace his life-affirming Abrahamic Expansionism. This would overcome skepticism, pessimistic nihilism, divisive sectaranism, and the life-denying ascetic ideas in the sectarian Creeds (with their deity "without parts or passions" that denied the generative bodily powers of the Abrahamic God). As Joseph's Abrahamic Theology would not repress and deny the body and the lifeward energies but instead direct one's bodily energies toward living more fully in their procreative body with joy: by learning to be like the embodied Gods themselves one would more fully embrace Life and the bodily drives to thrive through an active hope in becoming exalted as future Supercouples through an endowment of power (See D&C 132: 19, 63 and Abr. 2:11). Thus one would overcome nihilism and give meaning to life through this artistic recreation of themselves as not depraved sinners whose bodily drives God hates (as in Protestantism), but instead would affirm organic life as sexual beings that become like God by becoming sexual Supercouples forming a family; advancing incrementally up the ladders of success toward exaltation as all the Gods had done before.

Just as the reader of Nietzsche's work doesn't necessarily need to believe in the ideal of breeding Superhuman(s), to benefit from from the psychical energy of Nietzsche's "get off your butt and do something extraordinary" type energy; the reader of Joseph Smith's religion-making dramatic artistry, can get caught up in the theatrical wind of believing in a potential Transcendent Realm and the life affirming grandeur of his romantic vision; while appreciating his attempt to overcome nihilism and Augustinian asceticism by instead embracing life more fully and heroically. In other words, one does not need to believe that one needs to be married in Mormon temples to become literal male and female Gods that create worlds, to benefit from Joseph's life affirming Mythos: that says yes to the organic body, and says sexual desire and the sex act itself I'm committed relationships is good and holy and in fact the very way of the Gods! Thus changing the psychology from "despising the body" with a vision of a bodiless God that hates sex, to instead a vision of God that has sex Himself with His wife and wants you to enjoy sex as well with your wife which is the object and design of your existence.

This view of LDS theo-philosophy is thus pragmatic in the way Marcus Borg and Jordan Peterson interpret scripture: as useful symbolic structures for creating Meaning in Life, Inspiration, and a basis for Truth and the Good. Thus it is a pragmatic solution to passive nihilism. For it affirms organic life in the body and the Here and Now, thus framing existence as good and living fully as righteous.

As Lise van Boxel explains in her book, Warspeak: Nietzsche’s Victory over Nihilism, the question is about the author's "physio-psychology," that is the biology, physiology, temperament, and psyche of the poet philosopher. So that a religion or philosophy is either the byproduct of a strong, healthy and robust psyche or a weak and degenerative "sickly" psyche. From this interpretive lens, Joseph Smith would be seen as a poetic artist with a strong, healthy and robust psyche; a physio-psychology of generative nobility combined with his fair-minded Dream of Zion. In other words, Joseph's physio-psychology generated Scripture and a Church Structure that synthesized and balanced the Greco-Roman noble virtues and the Judeo-Christian ethical virtues. Hence, it ideally both emboldens and unifies.

So if Joseph Smith's Scripture is judged by its psychical "energy effect," rather than only its scientific veracity, then it could be valued for its generative effect on individuals and culture. If seen as dramatic art, not so much as archaeological or laboratory science (although there is some evidence in these areas of inquiry), then its existentialist theatrical effect on the psyche and culture can be better appreciated for it's meaning-making, inspiring, and unifying utility.

The better question then becomes, in regards to the spiritual-philosophy of Mormonism is:

Does it inspire and civilize, i.e. empower and synergize?

Does it bring out one's inner Lion and the spirit of Zion?

Are the Mormon People as a culture more physio-psychologically generative than others?

Are they healthier, wealthier, happier (with less divorce, more married couples, and functional families) in general? 

Note that this is not an endorsement of the Utah-based Church itself necessarily. For, as I write this I am not a member of the LDS Church. I am merely pointing out that something is going on with the psychical energy within the Restoration Movement itself. I'm arguing that that philosophical energy can be utilized by anyone, including existentialists and humanists, etc.