Mormons as Alleged Israelites & The LDS Church as a Restoration of Priestly Temple Religion

What separates Mormonism from other versions of Christianity, is that Joseph Smith was obsessed with the Israelite religion. At one point he even said that in the future animal sacrifices would be restored to the temple! 

Mormonism is better understood when one realizes that it is a restoration of ancient Israelite Religion: wherein Joseph Smith taught that Mormons are actual Israelites of the tribe of Ephraim or Mannasah, or they need to have their blood literally replaced with Israelite blood. This site explains: 

This is currently taught in the chapter 21 of the Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual. The bottom of page 57 says the following:

"This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; 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, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence” (Smith, Teachings,)

[A commenter Crobbin 17 writes:]

I always thought that it was more of a symbolic thing. I can’t believe that the manual is this explicitly “you will literally be a relative of Abraham, here’s your DNA switcheroo.”

 

PastafarianGawd writes:

"This is actually quite endearing to my Jewish friends"

My Jewish friends' eyes can't roll back any farther in their heads when I tell them I'm "of the tribe of Ephraim," though they are impressed that I even know what that is. LOL.

Added link to Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith. See page 149-150 [https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf]: 

“...while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood,[3] and make him actually of the seed of Abraham.[4] 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, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.” 

Footnotes: 

[3]. Isa. 4:4; Heb. 9:22.

[4]. John 8:33,37; Gal. 3:29;

D&C 84:34; D&C 103:17;

Abr. 1:4; Abr. 2:10.

Also see: Of the House of Israel By Daniel H. Ludlow. 

When this is understood one can see that Joseph Smith is presenting a different spiritual concept than what the New Testament teaches.

In brief, the New Testament is basically saying that with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, God is choosing to graft in gentiles/pagans into Israel but not through 1st century Israelite religiosity (Torah-observance and Temple attendance, etc ). The New Testament is saying that God's spiritual presence (divine energy or substance) originally resided in a physical Temple. But now, post 70 AD, Christ as the monogene of Jehovah, is a divine-life donor deity, acting as a fluid substance (divine energy) that fills new containers (human containers): as Christians become the New Temple and Christ is the Torah written on their heart. Therefore, there is no longer the need for priests or high demand Pharasaical religion because (1) gentiles are made righteous through Christ alone and (2) there's no Temple for a priest to enter anymore! Christians themselves become the only Temple of God as a corporate body. 

Because Mormonism rejects all of this and brings back the Israelite Priesthood, Temple, and Israelite lineage and bloodlines (with LDS claiming they are from the Israelite tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh), what comes with that is the restoration of high demand religion: very similar to the high demand religion of the sect of the Pharasess described in the Gospels. 

As well as a restoration of the ancient Temple religion of the Sadducees and only the high priest entering the holy of holies. According to this site:

The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste ... The focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple. 

The Sadducees disappeared around 70 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple. None of the writings of the Sadducees has survived, so the little we know about them comes from their Pharisaic opponents.

So besides reinventing the priestly caste elitism of the Sadducees, Mormonism also reestablishes the obsessive compulsive tradition of holiness (the Tradition of the Elders) preached by the Torah-observant Pharisees as described in the Gospels. This is why in the Mormon Church you do not have the concept of "saved by grace alone" but instead an emphasize on earning a perfect "worthiness status," in order to enter the LDS Temple and gain one's exaltation. Mormons are basically reestablishing Temple religion, quasi Torah-observance and Priests needing to be super holy to enter through the veil. 

As this LDS article explains: 

Anyone, regardless of religion, may enter a Latter-day Saint meetinghouse and attend services. However, because of the sacredness of temples as “houses of the Lord,” only members of the Church, who are in good standing are allowed to enter the temples. A member must be observing the basic principles of the faith and attest to that fact to his or her local leaders once every two years in order to enter a temple.

The terms "good standing" and "observing," are basically code words for the LDS Covenant Path which is very similar to ancient Israelite Temple religion and the 613 Laws of the Torah. 

If you think about it, this undoes what the New Testament describes as the work of Christ, with Christ removing the barrier of the curtain in the temple and access to God's Presence. 

(Source)

This website explains the traditional Christian view:

During the lifetime of Jesus, the holy temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. The temple was the place where animal sacrifices were carried out and worship according to the Law of Moses was followed faithfully. Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. ... at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross so much more momentous. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-51a, what do we make of this? What significance does this torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus’ death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile. When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a temple made with human hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that temple and its religious system, and the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 13:35. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 refers to the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13). In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says, “We have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us. The profound significance of the tearing of the veil is explained in glorious detail in Hebrews. The things of the temple were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death the faithful now have free access to God. The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16).

At this time Gentiles were not allowed to enter certain areas of the Jerusalem Temple, see image below:

(Source)

The Temple came to be seen in early Christianity as representative of lineal ethnic priesthood religion that divides Jews and Gentiles. With the temple destroyed, early Christians saw this as a symbol of God turning to the Gentiles and replacing ethnic Temple religion with the spirituality of Christ in you, i.e. God's Presence moving from a physical Tabernacle to human tabernacles; where there is no longer ethnic divisions, no Jew nor Gentile. The Gospel authors are interpreting the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as evidence of Paul's early theology of Gentile inclusion into Israel, not through Temple attendance and Torah-observance and Jewish bloodlines and priesthood but through Christ alone.

This is what distinguishes Mormonism from traditional Christianity and makes Mormonism more like the Black Hebrew Israelites. By claiming to be from from the Jewish Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the LDS Church reestablishes Israelite ethnic bloodlines as LDS Leaders teach that LDS are Israelites: which would mean they are subject to Torah-observance, but instead of Torah-observance, Mormonism has its own version of Torah-observance with the LDS Covenant Path. 

The Mormon Church claim that LDS are part of the Lost Tribes of Israel is according to this Christian video by Got Questions, based on a myth.

The positive side of Mormons basically trying to reinvent Israelite ethnic religion is that Mormonism becomes a quasi-ethnic religion in its own right, which bonds Mormons closer together as a spiritual family; as they see themselves as spiritual Israelites and just as ancient Israelites were a closely bonded community, and Jewish people today form a tight-knit community, Mormons do the same with this mythology of being Ephraimite Israelites and restoring ancient Israelite religion. So a positive spin on this, is that if one is willing to take part in a reestablishing and reinventing of the high demand religion of the ancient Israelites (the traditions of the ancient Pharasess and the temple elitism of the Sadducees), then Mormonism can feel like an extended spiritual family. I have found that some people who are LDS simply have the right personality type and a willingness to embrace the heavy burden (or yoke) of a high demand religion. For these types of individuals, high demand sainthood does not feel like a heavy burden. For these individual LDS members, I support them and applaud them in their endeavor to reestablish ethnic Israelite religion. To each their own. But for me personally it does feel like a heavy burden. In my opinion, it is contrary to the New Testament, with the original New Testament concept of Christ in you I think moves you beyond high demand religion, which for me feels more liberating. 

When all this is better understood, everything begins to make sense, for example LDS garments were an attempt at restoring ancient Israelite garments. Of course nothing was a complete recopying of ancient Israel, as everything was modified by Joseph Smith to retroactively refit Israelite religion into an Americanized context. So that for example, instead of an exact copying of the Israelite sacrificial religion in the ancient Jewish Temple, Joseph Smith modified his Temple ritual by integrating the rituals of Freemasonry. 

LDS apostle Orson Hyde's Arguments on "Miracles" in 1836 Disproves Modern Mormonism

The apostle Orson Hyde wrote the following in his 1836 pamphlet A prophetic warning to all the churches… (emphasis added; words in brackets added by me):

Again: Paul said, God set some in the church, first apostles; secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing, helps governments, diversities of tongues. -- To one is given by the spirit, the word of wisdom; to another, faith by the same spirit; to another, the word of knowledge by the same spirit; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues." This seems to have been the gospel and order of worship which Paul advocated and established: and said "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Do the gentile [and LDS] churches, of this day, preach and practice the above order? or have they lost it? They certainly have lost it. And have they not great reason to fear that a curse instead of a blessing will rest upon them. If the Jews were broken off because of unbelief, what must the Gentiles expect, who have not continued in the goodness of the Lord? It really appeared to me that every person who is not biased by most unhallowed prejudice, can see that the churches [including modern LDS] of this day bear but a faint resemblance to those which existed in the days of the Apostles. Whence arises this difference? Do we live under a different dispensation from what they did? If we do, when was the dispensation changed, and by whose authority? If we do not, why not preach and practice the same things which they did? ... 

 

... The great body of the clergy [including LDS] are acting without authority from God at this time. My reasons for saying so, are these. 1st. The sick are not healed under their hands. 2. They do not confirm those whom they baptize by the laying on of their hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit: and why? because they are not authorized so to do: Yet it appears, that they rather impeach the system of heaven, than their own course in relation to it. But I say, let God be true, and every man a liar. Christ's doctrine was a doctrine of miracles, and healing the sick; and John the Apostle, says: "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ; he hath both the Father and the Son." Again: Christ said unto the Jews, "He that is of God, heareth God's words. Ye, therefore, hear them not because ye are not of God." How, I ask, can the clergy of this day, be of God; and yet deny all miraculous powers? How can God be with them when they have not abode in the doctrine of Christ?

When Orson Hyde wrote this the LDS church was more Pentecostal in temperament (from about 1830-1837). Between 1830-1837, Joseph Smith was claiming to receive constant revelations from the voice of Jesus. Joseph Smith and LDS leaders were constantly claiming to heal the sick and even trying to raise the dead at this time. People would literally stand up in gatherings and try to prophesy or literally speak in tongues (technically called glossolalia), while today most LDS consider this speaking gibberish.

 Overtime, this speaking in tongues (glossolalia) became too chaotic and it was removed as a frequent practice between 1837 and 1899. In other words, back then pre-1837, LDS members were more Pentecostal in worship style and more superstitious; they expected their prophet to be an actual prophet, seer and revelator. Meaning back then Joseph Smith acted out the role of a literal seer, claiming to be able to see the future. He acted as a literal revelator, receiving constant revelations that were canonized as the "word of God" in LDS scripture. People were expected to literally be healed of sickness and even death through miraculous healings. Today, most Mormons go straight to the doctor! 

Yes, some Mormons today are more believing in supernatural intervention than other LDS members. But the mainstream LDS Church, and even other Book of Mormon churches outside of Utah, do not really think that you should pray over somebody rather than taking them to the doctor. Nobody actually tries to "speak in tongues" (glossinalia) and have an interpreter of the miracle of glossinalia in a meeting. Instead, Mormons say that what "speak in tongues" really means is that you can learn a foreign language as a missionary. But this is not what the Apostle Paul meant by "speaking in tongues," he meant a literal random spirit-inspired gifted ability to a speak foreign language or the language of angels without learning it beforehand. 

So I would argue that Orson Hyde's arguments against the Protestants of his day -- when they rejected the idea of prophets, seers, and revelators and Pentecostal-type glossonalia and other miracles -- can now be applied to the LDS Church today. In other words, LDS leaders no longer act as seers or revelators like Joseph Smith did, and they do not prophesy and do not actually (i.e. provably) heal the sick or raise the dead.

The fact is we are just too rational and scientific today with our modern educations, cell phones,  computers and AI, and all the advancements in science, to believe in such superstitious ideas. We know that the idea of someone spontaneously speaking a foreign language without ever attempting to learn that language is superstitious nonsense. We know that God does not heal amputees. We know that miracles do not happen as described in the New Testament. We know this because we continue to go to the doctor instead of only praying over people; and those who don't take for example their children to the doctor and just pray for them instead of also seeking medical attention, can be accused of child endangerment or negligect for putting children in danger of dying or becoming ill without medical intervention. Such parents who do refuse to take their children to the doctor and instead just pray over them can be put in jail for committing a crime. The fact is we are less superstitious and credulous nowadays after living on the other side of Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein, etc.  

The fact is being a "saint" today (an alleged "holy one"), who has the alleged power to practice glossonalia and heal amputees or prophesy the future or reveal the literal words of Jesus to be printed in scripture, is no longer really believed in and clearly not practiced by modern LDS leaders and members. The fact is, nobody believes in any of that anymore.

 We know that demons don't cause disease, but germs or viruses do, etc. So somebody does not need a priesthood-holding saint to perform an exorcism, but better hygiene or medical intervention.

To deal with this obvious end to exorcisms, miracles, etc., due to the rise of modern science, things like glossonalia has become learning a foreign language; alleged prophets no longer act as revelators of new scripture but now warn people to not use the word "mormon" for example.

 There are no more actual healings or provable miracles, only prayers over those after we take them to the hospital. Prayer now acts as a  psychological comfort and maybe a placebo effect; but no one who is educated and sane today expects "miracle prayers" to trump medical intervention. Sure we may pray for someone after taking them to the hospital, but we don't not take someone to the hospital and pray over them instead: for that would be considered insane nowadays, and likely illegal when it comes to children, which is the view even among most Christians. 

To learn more about how in the early Mormon Church, the alleged miracle of speaking in tongues (glossinalia) was a common and expected practice among LDS members, and how it was later eventually weeded out from common practice, see the article: Speaking in Tongues in the Restoration Churches by Lee Copeland (PDF link).

Stealing Our Identities and Selling a Mask Back To Us

In my introduction, I talked about how I was not really given a genuine choice but was indoctrinated into accepting the identity of a saintly Priest (or "preisthood holder"), starting when I was just 12 years old! 

In my blog post on pro-creatorhood, I discuss how after one begins their new journey post-sainthood, one can now grow toward their authentic selves and add style to their character as a creative artist. 

I then ran across the following that sunstantiates what I wrote in those posts.

From Book of Mormon: DNA and the Lamanites:

Until DNA science confirmed what scientists had long believed about how the Americas were populated, the prophets of this church were clear that Native Americans were the direct descendents of the Lamanites. The video we highlighted above, People of Destiny, was released in 1988 and is literally released to who the church calls “Lamanites.”

At the end of the video they have testimonies from members, and here is one quote that makes me feel uncomfortable to hear:

"We have learned about a man named Lehi, about his son Nephi, and Jacob. We have grown to love these men very much and learn from the Book of Mormon that we are their descendents. That we come from them. And because we loved them so much we have named our sons after them.”

This is simply untrue, and the Book of Mormon is taking the identity of both Native Americans and Polynesians and replacing it with a story that is not true or real. Imagine being told that your ancestors were so wicked that their skin turned a darker color, and that’s how you know that you’re descended from them. Then imagine that this is used to get your to join a church that takes our time, money, and identity from you only to find out that the very basic premise of the Book of Mormon is not true.

The same website here then makes this excellent point:

Stealing Our Identities and Selling Them Back To Us​

In the overview about race and the scriptures of Mormonism [see link above] I included a video of a Polynesian woman who talked about how their identities were now tied to being the descendants of the Book of Mormon people, which is a horrible teaching from the church that steals their true history and cultural identity. 

The reality is that while the church directly steals the true history of the ancestors of Native Americans and Polynesians with the Book of Mormon, they also take our identities away from us as well. We are taught that we were the chosen elect in the pre-existence that fought the adversary’s plan and as such were able to obtain a mortal body to experience this life before we return to the Celestial Kingdom… if we do everything the church requires in the meantime.

When we go to the temple we are given a series of handshakes that we will need to return back to the Celestial Kingdom along with a “new name” that I was taught was the name I was called in that pre-existence. These teachings absolutely strip our real history and identity from us in order to sell the promise of exaltation back through obedience to the church.

My experience in the temple was a horrible one which I’ve detailed elsewhere, but I did not know when I received my “new name” that every other man in the temple that day received the same one. I was led to believe this was a name given by revelation only to find out years later that it was literally a name pulled off an index card and that every other man that day was apparently also called that name before receiving these mortal bodies.

It’s just one of the many ways that the church chips away at our identity so that we willingly give it to the church, and the church then holds the promise of exaltation over head by using that very identity that they’ve created. This would be OK if the church was true, but it’s not.

The idea of the pre-existence was created with the Book of Abraham, which as we’ve shown in the Book of Abraham overviews was a completely incorrect translation by Joseph Smith and used outside sources to provide a vehicle for Joseph Smith’s evolving theology including the idea of a pre-existence.

All of these ways that the church tries to provide us an identity that they can then use against us can be very harmful whenever you begin to question the central truth claims of the church, and the moment that we give our identity to the church it becomes that much more difficult to get it back once we start to see that the church is not what it claims to be. 

Patriarchal blessings are another area where the church attempts to shape your identity by revealing what tribe you're from, but as I covered in the overview on revelations these patriarchal blessings have been proven false over and over again. Yet how many members will refer back to these blessings throughout their lives even though they are often cookie-cutter blessings that will be almost identical to anyone else who receives one from the same patriarch? It is a very easy way for the church to take our identity and replace it with one that is completely tied to the church.

As I said above, before I joined the Mormon church I never for a second thought I would not be with my family upon death, yet in Mormonism Joseph Smith created that problem to sell you the solution. The same can be shown with the church as a whole, where they create this new version of heaven (Celestial Kingdom) in order to sell you the solution which is complete obedience to church leaders until we die.

In selling us the solution, they are asking for us to do the following: 

• Covenant to full obedience to the church, including a promise to give everything to the church (not God) in the temple

• 10% of your income for life to a church with a $140 billion investment fund

• Wearing church-required underwear with Masonic symbols on them every day for the rest of your life

• Following the Word of Wisdom which forbids healthy drinks such as coffee and tea while allowing energy drinks, soda, and sugary drinks

• Telling leaders about our private, intimate details in order to be declared worthy or unworthy

• Following prophets even when they are proven wrong by science, society, or their own revelations just years later

 

I know I sound flippant here, but the reality is that the church uses Joseph Smith’s treasure digging techniques in that they are constantly telling you that the reward is just around the corner if only you’ll continue to fund and obey their commands, except instead of buried treasure it’s eternal rewards that can never be proven false unlike Joseph’s treasure digs.

I could not have said it better. Today, I realize that despite any good intentions on the part of Joseph Smith as a pious fraud (as Dan Vogel describes Smith, as basically a sincere deciever); I cannot escape the most logical conclusion, which is that Joseph Smith was seeking to replace people's authentic identities. For example, through alleged revealed scripture, Smith tried to replace the real ethnic identity of Native Americans with a fake one by falsely calling them all Lamanites based on the obviously make-believe characters in the Book of Mormon. This was/is a tragedy given they have their own ethnic identity which he affectively stole from them. 

Even if Joseph genuinely believed he was channeling divine revelation with the Book of Mormon, that makes him at best delusional and it still makes him responsible for being the deliverer of a false ethnic history to an entire group of people. Thus his credibility as a "prophet, seer, and revelator," is ruined right there.

 Smith also sought to replace the identity of his other non-Lamanite converts with still a new "Mormon" identify by calling them "Latter Day Saints." Thus they were now given a new worldview of it is the ladder days, which was obviously untrue. This feeling of urgency with an expected return of Christ in their lifetimes led the early Mormon Saints to accept more and more control over their lives and losing their genuine selfhood more and more. Just two of the controlling aspects of their lives was wearing garments and bearing testimony constantly, which subconsciously programmed them mentally to embrace their new saintly identity.

I think Smith was a person who was ultimately seeking power and control over others. So that even if he had some good intentions in this process of creating a utopian Zion; I can't help but see as well an attempt on his part to control others which I think boosted his own ego by giving him a feeling of power over others. 

I now want nothing to do with any attempt by others to control me through a false identity and controlling "covenant path" to sainthood.

I have taken control of my own life and my own identity. 

Recommended Articles and Websites

 

• Assessing the Mormon Church Using Steven Hassan’s BITE Model for Cults

• 613 Rules for Members of the LDS Church

• Dialogue Journal Articles on Joseph Smith

Why Otherwise "Kind Religious People" are Sometimes So Unkind?

 

Over the years I have pondered why a Mormon who is taught to be caring and compassionate, will completely slander a person's character by calling them an anti-mormon for merely questioning the truth claims of Mormonism. The LDS member is otherwise a very kind person. I have often been baffled by this because that otherwise kind Mormon must know that calling someone an anti-mormon publicly is a huge slander to their character in Mormon culture and paints them as an "enemy"; and carries with it a lot of baggage and misinformation that makes people assume the former Mormon is very hateful towards Mormons when in reality most exmormons have Mormon family members they love and care about. Instead of the false accusation of "he/she is anti-mormons," the ex-mormon is often just questioning and doubting Mormon dogma itself while loving and being kind to Mormons individually. So why would so many Mormons so easily throw around the term anti-mormon to slander and dehumanize an ex-mormon? 

I have pondered this quite a bit and I've come to the conclusion that the physicist Steven Weinberg is mostly correct when he said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I have reworded it this way: 

Inately kind people tend to do kind things and evil prone unkind people tend to do unkind things. But for kind people to do unkind things, that takes religion. 

I like my modification to the word kind a little bit better because it matches what I have experienced in reality myself. For growing up in the Mormon Church, a religion that promotes kindness, I have often been baffled by just how unkind some (no, not all) LDS people can be toward those who doubt and question or leave the religion. I have seen otherwise kind Mormons be dismissively cruel, unkind, and uncaring toward a member who is doubting their religious worldview and is going through a lot of existential pain. It seems like this otherwise caring Mormon, in these situations will shut off their empathy circuits and operate as a loyal member of their religion over a caring spouse or parent or sibling, etc. For example, at first I was appreciative of Patrick Mason's book Planted, where he emphasizes the LDS scripture of mourning with those who mourn. I remember thinking, where were the LDS members like Patrick Mason when I was questioning the truth claims of the LDS Church in the early 2000s? 

I realize now that the truth is Patrick Mason is an anomaly; his genuine good person nature and thoughtful personality overrides his sainthood indoctrination. The evidence that Patrick Mason's version of Mormonism is not true Mormonism, is obvious when you see how when Patrick started to humanize exmormons and seek to build bridges with them around 2022, he was immediately criticized and condemned and ostracized by the majority of his fellow Latter-day Saints. He then went mostly quiet online because I personally think he quickly realized that you cannot bridge the gap between the perceived holy and unholy. 

It does not matter how many New Testament and even Book of Mormon scriptures that Patrick quotes, from leaving the 99 to care for the "1", to mourning with those who mourn; for those passages are often reinterpreted through the paradigm of sainthood: wherein what is most important is separating oneself from the worldly and the wicked and the unholy. For, while the New Testament itself does contain many passages that seeks to break down social barriers, it also simultaneously contains ideas that encourages maintaining in group holiness: which means seperating oneself from those deemed unholy (or non-saintly). As the apostle Paul himself puts it 2 Corinthians 6:14 (AMP):

Do not be unequally bound together with unbelievers [do not make mismatched alliances with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

That verse is just one example, here are some more verses, paraphrasing each of these verses from memory: "go and sin no more," "don't be like the Gentiles/Goyim," or "your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees." In other words, multiple passages can be quoted to point out that even the New Testament, while having a universal ethic of ideal cosmopolitan brotherhood, is nevertheless about being holy: and thus separating the holy from the percieved to be unholy, with again Paul saying things like do not be unequally yoked (united) with spiritually "dark" unbelievers. 

The reader just needs to ask themselves, how could all of those Christians in the Middle Ages hear the New Testament read aloud often or hear sermons quoting scripture, and then practice behaviors that separated the perceived holy from the unholy; even going so far as to at times in the past engage in torturing percieved unholy unbelievers and even burning them alive? 

The answer to this question becomes obvious when one understands what sainthood is really all about (as I discuss in the blog post here). For as I mentioned in my introduction, seeking Mormon sainthood status is not about being a good person or seeking The Good Life of the philosophers. Sainthood is the path of seperating from the unholy earth that is believed to be literally teeming with demons (or evil spirits). It is culturally about seeking Methodist Piety, and/or Augustinian Puritanism. Meanwhile, the LDS canon includes scripture promoting "Paulianity": where a literal space alien called Sin is possessing your limbs, combined with end-times hysteria, a devil delusion, and demon phobia. So "the world" is a frightful place to avoid and escape from. So that sainthood is about the pursuit of holiness as pious seperating from most earthly sensory experiences because the earth is ulitmately evil and the fleshly body is wretched and controlled by alleged evil forces. See my introduction for more details.

With this in mind, it becomes  clear that Mormonism is not a mind-space for developing one's authentic self and genuine friendships beyond dogma, for in Mormonism that is not the ideal. For Mormon scripture speaks of denying yourself of all ungodliness which means all unholiness, which are behaviors and attitudes outside the ideal of sainthood and total obedience to the Brethren. It is a lifestyle of maintaining the saintly persona by maintaining a certain distance from unholy outsiders, by associating primarily with the saintly in-group of devout garment-wearing Mormons (Saints). 

It is within this ultra-holiness paradigm that you will find otherwise kind people being not so kind in the name of religious sainthood. It is in this "I-must-be-holy-at-all-times" mentality that for example a Mormon family member will disinvite a disbelieving former-LDS family member for say a holiday dinner because they are no longer believers in sainthood; and thus they being deemed "unholy," or "unbelievers," are now a potential existential threat to the saintly sanctum of the Mormon in-group of "Saints" (holy ones). 

This explains why there will often be gossip and slander of anyone who questions LDS dogma or leaves the LDS Church, and an assuming the worst about the person; because there is only one way to think of them and describe them which is through the lens of the sainthood paradigm; which is to see them as either "lazy learners," or "they just want to sin," or they could not handle the high demand holiness objective of the only true church, etc. The reason for this is because a failure to bear your "testimony" (or worse give your reasons why you're exmormon), is a threat to the testimony of everyone within the in-group of holy testimony  bearers. For the paradigm of Holinesses is built upon the testimony bearing of these holy-insider Latter-day Saints. Therefore, those who will not bear a testimony (affirming the alleged "truth" of a life of pious holiness), becomes a threat to maintaining that sphere of holiness; and therefore doubters become an existential threat to the insider's worldview paradigm.  This explains why otherwise kind Mormons will sometimes be rather unkind to exmormons because the saintly paradigm drives them to act that way through phobia indoctrination and contamination fears: wherein they see the exmormon outsider as "spiritually gross" and infectious as an unholy contaminate. In Pauline language referenced above, their percieved unholy "darkness" is a threat to maintaining one's bright and pure body as a "holy temple."

This "your spiritually gross" reaction is explained in psychological terms by our innate sense of disgust and recoilment from things that cause disease and death, such as our natural fear of a rotting corpse or a diseased maggot infested animal on the side of the road. This fear of contamination is then transposed onto the exmormon who is subconsciously perceived by the Latter-day Saint as supernaturally infectious as unholy/un-saintly, just like a disease within their unconscious mind's perspective. Thus, the exmormon triggers their natural bodily immune system response to percieved disease and death by unconsciously projecting onto the exmormon these feelings of disgust and recoilment and fear of contamination. So that all of these natural fears and contamination phobias are transferred onto the exmormon because of the constant indoctrination of maintaining religious purity and separating oneself as a saint from the impure (the unholy). 

So that just as you cannot get somebody to willingly touch something they know is likely contaminated with infectious disease, you cannot get an LDS True Believer to hear you out and care about your exmormon story; because the former-saint (exmormon) is quite literally spiritually infectious and "supernaturally diseased" in the Latter-day Saint's subconscious mind.

If you take away the phobia induction and contamination fears from a must-maintain-holiness mentality, these LDS people would not be as uncaring to exmormons. But because the entire LDS system is a system of maintaining insider-holiness, which means being called out as a holy one from the worldly; then those who leave the Church or even question the Church are automatically thought of subconsciously by most members as contaminated by the evil world (i.e., they are worldly, part of the unholy and the wicked to some degree).

 Since thousands of words in Mormon scripture itself and in Mormon talks and sermons emphasize a separation of the holy from the unholy, the pure from the wicked, then it is inevitable that this subconscious indoctrination will impact a Mormon's behavior: so that an otherwise caring and kind person will often be quite unkind to somebody they  subconsciously perceive as unholy; as they are in their subconscious mind a spiritual contaminant, a worldly infectious threat.

So the next time a Mormon or another religious person who is otherwise kind most of the time, behaves rather unkindly to the exmormon, remember that they unconsciously see them as some kind of spiritual contaminant and as a threat to their testimony; and this is likely why they are being so unkind. They are responsible for their actions, but I believe it's not entirely them but they are a product of thousands of hours of in-group indoctrination from LDS indoctrination.

Pro-Creatorhood & Some Better Alternatives to Mormonism that Affirms Our Authentic Personhood & Our Lifeward Instincts

 

I realize now that if one simply pulls out a dollar bill they have an entire philosophy of life right there in the symbols on the back of the dollar bill: representing the American Deism of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (which I cover on this site). Besides Deism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism, I found that Possibilianism relieved me of the demand for certainty when it came to ultimate meaning and the afterlife (or possible afterlives).

 I've also consumed modern ideas and psychology systems like Dr. Paul Dobransky's work that I recommend. For example, his MindOS (PDF) is a good secular replacement for many LDS concepts. His Instincts-Psychology utilizing Greek mythology is in my opinion a better alternative to Mormonism for it better integrates our human instincts with our common ethical ideals. So that it's a synthesis of the best of self-empowerment and psychology. For example see this article on Power Imbalances and the Equation of Power, where he discusses the Zeus Instinct and the Hephaestus instinct and the physics equation of power. Also see his article Discovering the Passion and Generativity that Drive Men’s Happiness. He also wrote two books specifically to help women but men might find them useful as well, which can be found on Amazon. Also check out his online material here, here, and here.

Lately, as of 2024, I have been playing around with calling myself a Greco - Nordic - Stoic - Possibilian, in order to describe my current life-stance. First because it rhymes which I like, and also becomes it comes pretty close to succinctly capturing my current philosophical worldview in as few words as possible. By "Greco" I am referencing Dr. Paul's Dobransky's Instincts-Psychology and his use of Greek mythology to promote healthy masculine and feminine instincts. By "Nordic" I am referencing both my ancestors Viking mythology which was life-affirming (despite its barbarity by modern ethical standards), as well today's modern Scandinavian Nature-based spirituality and the Nordic formation of a kind of Secular Christianity; which to me proves that a people don't need religious "leader worship" or frequent scritpure reading to be good and ethical. A longer version to describe my current worldview would be something like: I'm a Greco - Nordic - Stoic - Johannine - Deist, Epicurean - Nietzscheanish - Possibilian - Renaissance Man.

Standing on the Pier of an Open Sea of Creative Possibilities with a Worldview Attitude of casting a Canopy of Joy and Laughter over the Luminous Sky 

(Image Source)

In Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, his central character Zarathustra says, "over cloud and day and night, did I spread out laughter like a colored canopy." I really like this quote as it signifies Nietzsche's ideal of a joyful and expansive attitude rather than a sky cast canopy of morose sainthood. Such imagery represents for me a powerful, uninhibited, expression of life

As Nietzche puts it in several  places of his work, once the dust has settled from the deconstruction of the theocratic-God belief, there emerges a new realm of possibility. The shore is open before is, like standing at a pier before an Open Sea. For me, going beyond sainthood is opening up to new ideas and ways of living, forming genuine friendships that aren't ready to fall apart the minute you express doubts in a creed or articles of faith. Its about forming real friendships that stand the test of time. Where there is joy and laughter rather than fake piety. A new life, unshackled, unburdened, and free from the Utha-based Mormon Curch's definition of sainthood as basically puritanical perfectionism; it is about going beyond man-made rules and false restraints and instead forming one's own ethical code; and affirming biological life and being your real self, your actual true personality, by taking off the Mormon mask and stepping out of the confining cage of dogma and becoming a "free spirit."

I often reference Nietzsche because despite my diagreeing with and rejecting much of his ideas, I resonate with his main aim of balancing skepticism and mystic-like artistry. Ayn Rand called him a mystic as if to condemn him. But this is the part of Nietzsche's philophy that most appeals to me. I believe that the key to appreciating Nietzsche and taking from him what is useful and discarding what is problematic, is understanding that the core of his philosophy is an attempt to overcome depressive passive-nihilism and embrace reality as it is in a spirit of optimistic joy and laughter and personal meaning-making creativity. For more details, I highly recommend the book Joy and Laughter in Nietzsche’s Philosophy: Alternative Liberatory Politics, Edited by Paul E. Kirkland.

 This emphasis on saying yes to this world of the flesh and chaos, and within such yin-yang dynamics of becoming, experiencing more joy and laughter, is at the heart of his life philosphy. For example, here is an excerpt from Quotes & Commentary #28: Nietzsche by Roy Lotz: 

 I would believe only in a god who could dance. — Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra.

 

This is one of Nietzsche’s most famous quotes. Like a catchy tune, it sticks effortlessly in the memory after one hearing. Perhaps this is only because it conjures up such a silly image. I imagine the God of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, bearded and robed, skipping and dancing from cloud to cloud, filling heaven with capricious laughter.

But why is this image so silly? Why was Michelangelo, along with so many others, inclined to picture God as solemn, grave, and frowning? Why is a dancing deity such a paradox?

A true god would have no need to be serious and severe; those values are for stern parents, Sunday-school preachers, and ruler-snapping teachers. I know this from my own teaching experience: Putting on a strict, frowning, joyless countenance is a desperate measure. Teachers do it in order to reduce their yapping, fidgeting, giggling, scatterbrained kids into hushed, intimidated, obedient students. But would a god need to resort to such scare-tactics?

 

This observation is part of Nietzsche’s aim, to resuscitate the Dionysian in European life. By Dionysian, Nietzsche meant the joys of passion, disorder, chaos, and of creative destruction. The Dionysian man identifies with the stormy waves smashing the shore, with the lion tearing into its prey. He is intoxicated by earthly life; every sensation is a joy, every step is a frolic.

This is quite obviously in stark contrast with the Platonic ideal of a philosopher: always calm and composed, scorning the pleasures of the body, worshiping logical order and truth. A true Platonist would never dance. Christianity largely adopted this Platonic idea, which found ultimate expression in the monastic life—a life of routine, celibacy, constant prayer, scant diet, and self-mortification—a life that rejects earthly joys.

Nietzsche’s "joyful science" can thus act as a counteractive remedy for soul crushing LDS piety and perfectionism; a kind of cure for those to whom seeking Platonistic sainthood is all too often a life denying, self hating, self-flagellating exercise in self-shaming, crazy making self-delusion. So that one can grow into their true self beyond dogma and instead embrace reality as it is and one's natural manhood or womanhood with joyful exuberance! 

Consider the philosophical energy of these quotes from Nietzsche on joy, dance and laughter, from his "holy book," Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

This crown to crown the laughing man, this rose-wreath crown: I myself have set this crown upon my head, I myself have pronounced my laughter holy.

....

I would only believe in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall. Not by wrath does one kill but by laughter. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity!

.....

And let that day be lost to us on which we did not dance once! And let that wisdom be false to us that brought no laughter with it!

(Source) 

If only LDS scripture and theology expressed such post-priestly, life-affirming energy and vitality!

From Post-Sainthood to Pro-Creatorhood: Creating my own Character and Persona beyond Sainthood

Part of post-sainthood is being pro-creatorhood, which is a term I came up with to describe creating your own worldview, ethical code, and lifestyle; while giving style to your character and becoming your real authentic self by first taking off the LDS dogma-googles and religious personae, and instead beginning to see the world through your own eyes for the first time.

A key component of pro-creatorhood is bringing forth from within your truest most authentic self and identity by moving away from trying to mold yourself into the mirror image of the Brethren; and instead becoming an existential artist in the realm of self creation and becoming your true self.

I'm influenced heavily by Nietzsche in this regard and his emphasis on giving style to your character and becoming who you are (not who they want to mold you into in their image). You cannot become who you truly are if you're constantly molding yourself into someone else's created persona, an often pretend pious persona, made in the image of the LDS Brethren. You're true authentic personality is not going to fully come through if you are conforming to someone else's personality and molding yourself into a fake persona based on a conformist and indoctrinated pious performance.

So the opposite of post-sainthood is for me pro-creatorhood: the creation of your real authentic self, becoming the creative artist of your own life and story. Choosing to live a life of joy and creativity rather than a life of holy conformity, religious fear and blind obedience. In my own case, I can psychoanalyze myself today and see a clear and distinguishable difference between my pre-19 year old self and my post-19 year old self. In other words, before turning 18 -- and becoming more active in the LDS Church (when contemplating going on a mission) -- my authentic personality was able to come forth more, prior to post age 19. For I had developed, between the age of 12 and 18, secular friendships and a secular identity apart from the LDS Church living in more secular California (where most people are not LDS). So despite going to Church regularly as a child and being heavily indoctrinated, after about age 12 I broke away from the indoctrination and stopped attending church. When I turned 14 and older, I only went to LDS dances while also going to secular venues and clubs occassionally, etc. In Mormon language I was pretty much "inactive / less active" during this time (ages 12-17). This was a time of exploration and developing my true nature and selfhood which was not priestly nor pious at all, I can see now in hindsight. But everything changed for me after I entered the MTC and began experiencing serious cultish indoctrination on my two year mission.

After age 19, after becoming a missionary, I was more fully indoctrinated and immersed into a cult mentality and doctrinaire Mormonism as a missionary. I pretty much lost that sense of my true self and real identity, and ever since my mission I became a pious performer to one degree or another; and had difficulty taking off this mask of piety because of those two long years of daily preaching and scripture study as an ordained minister (I actually read the entire Bible on my mission) and basically engaging in self-indoctrinating myself daily by bearing a testimony and essentially selling Brighamite brand Mormonism. It took me a long time to reconnect with my pre-19 year old self after that, getting back to when I was more "me," and less fixated on heavy religious subjects and was more free and fun and jovial and spontaneous and creative.

Pro-creatorhood means for me seeing yourself as not just an absorber of scripture and an obeyer and follower of the Brethren, but being a self-rolling wheel, a self-creating exuberant star so to speak. It is the recognition that you are an individual and a unique self, with your own personality and genetics and capacity for greatness in your own sphere of potentiality.

Pro-creatorhood means not memorizing scripture verses and molding yourself into the image of the Brethren (LDS Leaders), but instead being more spontaneous and creative in the pursuit of creating your own lifestyle and bringing out your true authentic self and real personality.

It means starting random conversations with spontaneous creativity without some unconscious religious agenda, and instead always flowing to the rhythm of reality rather conforming to LDS doctrine. Living with genuine aliveness and curiosity rather than acting like a pre-programmed robot following a scriptural script and fitting your demeanor and communication into a performative mold of a priestly saint. It means making a choice to free yourself from the self-enslaving mold of sainthood by choosing the freedom of creatorhood.

Nietzsche told a friend that he wrote his own version of a "holy book" with his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which declares laughter holy. As the article Nietzsche’s holy jest by Nicholas E Low puts it, "laughter itself represents the heart of Nietzsche’s new revelation of ‘holiness,’ one that challenges regnant [dominant] expressions of religion and piety while resisting serious, doctrinal formulation." Reading Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, and laughing during several sections of an audiobook version, it occurred to me just how much actual humor and laughter is missing from the "holy" Bible and all Mormon scripture. For while Zarathustra made me laugh out loud several times, reading the Mormon corpus of scripture did make me laugh once.



It's as if to put the word holy before the Bible is signifying that being holy, or saintly, is to lack a sense of humor. Just think about it, why are most highly religious comedians so terrible and unpopular for the most part? Sure someone's going to mention an exception to this rule, but the reason is obvious.


I have always had a good sense of humor. I began drawing cartoons as a child and my cartoons would often illustrate a comedic idea. I then enjoyed watching comedy shows, movies and stand up in my teen years and continued to develop my sense of humor. Growing up in LDS culture I quickly learned over time that a sense of humor is not the norm and not the ruling expectation. Now somebody's going to say, what about J. Golden Kimball and the few Mormon stand up comedians and more humorous Mormon themed podcasts out there? Yes, I know there are outliers, there are anomalies, but the norm is the pious reverent norm. That's the reason why these more funny and irreverent types of Mormons stand out so much, because they're outside the more reverent LDS norm. To say otherwise is to gaslight my actual experience and the experience of millions of other former Mormons who know what I'm talking about.


In my experience, the average Mormon is less comedic on average and does not usually have a sense of humor because "loud laughter" from say listening to a "profane" comedian is seen as irreverant or impious. I remember as a teenager attending a car show in Southern California, which included some comedians who used adult themes and profanity. I went with an older Mormon Elder who complained about the comedian's use of profanity and made us leave. I remember being irritated by this judgement of the comedian and how this uptight pious Mormon had no sense of humor and was acting holier than thou as if his pure ears were too holy for irrevant comedian. It just struck me as fake and performative. I knew this Mormon Elder was far from perfect himself, but I could tell he felt superior and more pure and holy by judging the comedian's use of profanity and adult themes.


If I could get paid for every disapproving look by Mormon adults I was given as a kid growing up in the LDS Church for being basically funny and "irreverant" I'd have been rich. Yes, there were exceptions, the occasional cool young men's teacher at church and the select few "cool" (i.e. "maskless" irrevant) Mormons I made friends with after my mission who did have a sense of humor. I was good at finding these other cool type Mormons with a sense of humor, but they were fewer in number. The majority of LDS did not appreciate my sense of humor growing up.


The LDS religion itself seems to burn away any levity and laughter. Yes I know Mormon temple rituals recently removed the warning to avoid laughter. But that doesn't take away the Mormon scriptures themselves constantly emphasize not laughing. And yes I know that Joseph Smith himself considered himself cheerful and there are Mormon scholars who talk about the cheerfulness and levity of Joseph Smith. But what good is it to appeal to Joseph Smith when nearly every other Mormon leader besides him, from Brigham Young to Boyd K. Packer, has basically utterly lacked a sense of humor. I mean are we really going to deny the humorless line of the LDS leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkey? Are these the kind of people you would see in a comedy club? Let's get real. If we are honest, to be a saint is to take on the persona of these men;and beyond that, a saint is to then based on scriptural mold themselves into the morose persona of Paul the apostle who never once expressed a sense of humor or a jovial nature in scripture.


So part of post-sainthood and pro-creatorhood for me today is continually bringing forth my true authentic self, untangled from the theological barbwire of the soul crushing high demand dogmatism, and instead living uncaged as a spiritual free agent. Being LDS, I often felt like my true nature and full humanity was being squelched and repressed by the Mormon Piety ideal with the constant focus of trying to "feel the Spirit" by LDS members changing their voice to a softer tone and offering constant mood shifting prayers to generate elevation emotions and an attitude of reverence. This constant attempt to maintain a persona of piety and reverence was calming simetimes but most of the time, for me at least, it just felt performative and fake like an act.


For some of the men it was about outcompeting others in their level of piety and sactimoniousness by displaying an attitude of, for example, "Look at how pure and holier than thou I am, I never ever cuss or watch rated R movies. I don't even walk my dog on Sundays!" This constant attempt to maintain a persona and demeanor of reverent piety felt fake and stifled my true artistic nature and creativity and sense of humor.


All throughout my youth growing up in LDS culture I remember That the overall atmospheric vibe was one of a condemnation of excessive wild joy and laughter. As a kid I enjoyed being wild and crazy, not in a disrespectful way toward adults but just being a lively kid and adolescent; and I remember all my LDS religious leaders, from scout leaders to church leaders, often being very upset and irritated by my jovial "irreverent" nature. Again, I know there are exceptions to the rule and many Mormons do have a sense of humor and there are some really good Mormon comedians, and I think they are awesome and I applaud their bravery and courage in breaking outside the social norm. But that's just it, the reason why they stand out is because they're outliers, they are not the LDS cultural norm. And to be fair, would we even expect any different behaviour from a group of people basically labeling themselves Latter-day Saints which basically signifies: "it's the fearful latter/last days so we must to be holier than the world as pure saints before its too late?" For that way of thinking and navigating the world isn't really a laughing matter is it? 

Recommended Viewing:

• Nietzsche’s Theory 'Finding Yourself': It's Not About Self-Discovery by thinkDeep

• Intro to Nietzsche: Self-Creation (Part 1) by Why Alexander

• Intro to Nietzsche: Self-Creation (Part 2) by Why Alexander

Demythoogizing the New Testament or Gutting it of Supernaturalism Unravels the Whole Ediface

 

Gutting the New Testament?

I actually spent several years beginning around 2015 seeking to follow in the footsteps of theologically-liberal Christians like John Spong and Marcus Borg, going so far as to write a blog and website covering my attempt at a reconstructed Liberal Christian worldview. As time went on however, I began to realize that by essentially gutting the New Testament of most of its supernaturalism, I was turning it into the Jefferson's Bible or a kind of watered down pamphlet on Stoicism, like the teachings of Musonius Rufos (which offers comparable ethical ideals to that of the historical Jesus). In other words, I began to realize that I was no longer a "Christian" in any supernatural sense of the word. For not only had I stopped believing in an actual Adam and Eve, a Fall and need of an Atonement, but I had reinterpreted the Satan as only a metaphor representing real world phenomenon like the Dark Triad; and demons had become for me mere metaphors for mental illness and mythical villains, etc. In other words, I had deconstructed the Bible to be mostly a set of metaphors. Yet most Christians I encountered were in disagreement with my more metaphorical faith position, if not rather hostile toward it. I had thus allegorized myself out of Christian Fundamentalism.

You Can't Gut the New Testament of its Supernaturalism without the whole Structure Falling Apart

I began to realize more fully by 2024, that the Liberal Christian position is really an attempt to treat the New Testament (and in particular the Gospels) like a modern secular ethical text, comparable to the more rational, practical, and ethical worldview of Musonius Rufus; but the fact is the the New Testament is just way to full of supernatural craziness to be practically useful if interpreted seriously and honestly within the context in which it was originally written (and intended to be read and applied); for the crazy ideas like a literal Devil and demon possession and literal End-Times, are interwoven all throughout the entire book of the New Testament; so that you end up ignoring what the texts are actually saying when you want to treat the New Testament like a modern ethical text. In other words, rather than merely a bundle of sayings and ideas to just remind you to be kind and generous, etc., in actuality the texts are really mostly upholding the priestly caste of shaman-like figures like Paul claiming to channel the voice of dead ghosts. Paul was not a Stoic philosopher appealing to reason and Nature like Musonius Rufos or Marcus Aurelius. Paul was not teaching one how to be a good person and the path of the Good Life here and now. Paul believed all mortal life was going to be destroyed in his lifetime and very soon his Messiah was going to fly down from the sky and setup a utopian celestial government. For him, the Good Life could not be achieved on earth among mortals, for the earth and the Cosmos itself was controlled by the god of this world (a literal Devil) and a magical force he called Sin! So what most of the New Testament is actually about is becoming a Pauline saint (i.e. a set-aside, living sacrifice); and thus the aim is not our human future on earth but escaping this world through monastic self-denial and the death wish of martyrdom and/or hoping soon to be whisked away up into the sky to meet the Messiah in the clouds (during an immanent Second Coming).