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?
