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). 

Table of Contents

 

• Introduction (start here)

• Defining Mormon "Sainthood": The actual Meaning of a Saint and Sin & the Priestly Caste 

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

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

• Pro-Creatorhood & Some Better Alternatives to Mormonism that Affirms Life & Our Human Instincts

• Stealing Our Identities and Selling a Mask Back To Us

• Why Otherwise "Kind Religious People" are Sometimes so Unkind (Dismissive, Judgemental and Rude)?

• Recommended Articles and Websites

Introduction: Why I Freed Myself from Living as a Saintly LDS Priest & Why I'm Not a "New Order Mormon"

 

Even though I grew up in the LDS Church if someone had asked me as a kid what I wanted to be when I grew up, the answer would not have been the following: 

"Oh, I'm so excited to share with you my dream! Ya know what, I want to be like those priests on TV who wear all black but with a white collar, only instead of a white collar I want to wear special white sacred underwear every day and night, and instead of all black I want to dress up in business clothes to portray my priestly status. I want all those same kind of duties of a priest you see on TV and movies. I want to be a "holy person," separated from the world, able to do that thing where a priest consecrates the eucharist, but I want to do it symbolically by "blessing the sacrament" when I am only 12 years old. Because who wants to be a child just at play when you can start playing the heavily draining role of a priest as a child! I want to be a priest so I can literally exorcise tall demons in a single bound by raising my hand. I want to perform magic rituals for dead people with my priesthood power! Oh, man, I can't wait!

I don't want the normal life of a hormonal teenager developing a sense of style and identity of my own. I want my entire identity, persona and lifestyle mapped out and molded by Mormonism as a teenager.

 

When I turn 19 and I'm in the prime years of my youth I don't want to date girls and get started on an education or career. Heck no! I want to go on a two year proselytizing mission for the LDS Church as an ordained minister; where for two years I am forbidden to date or masturbate (or even fantasize about the opposite sex without being shamed) and will instead only self-indoctrinate myself being away from family and friends and doing nothing but thinking about, reading about, and preaching LDS dogma. I can't wait to wake up at 6:30 am and begin absorbing only Mormon dogma and then at about 10:30 am spending about 10 hours everyday (except prep day) in a shirt and tie in the hot sun of summer, preaching door to door as a dogma salesman!" 

Those words would not have been spoken by me at anytime growing up. As a kid growing up I knew my parents wore garments but I did not think much about it. I watched all the LDS priestly activities at church as a kid with passive disinterest, like watching the School Crossing Guard shuttling children across a busy intersection. "Cool outfit crossing lady," I might have thought to myself as a kid, but not something I aspired to do personally (not that there is anything wrong with that job, it just wasnt my dream as a kid). I was basically involuntarily given the priesthood at age 12, involuntary because when I agreed its not like I was making a real choice as a mere child. From there I performed certain priestly duties at age 12. However by age 14, I was completely inactive in the role of a young priest and just lived as a normal teenager from ages 14 to 17. 

During this time I kind of subconsciously deconverted in a way, for by just stopping going to church regularly and without the daily indoctrination (via programmed prayers and scripture reading, etc.) after my parents divorced, I just naturally never thought about God or religion at all. Looking back I can see now that this was my natural default state of being, living in the Now (without all the religious indoctrination clouding my mind). As an adult I can now see looking back that during these early years outside Mormonism, I was more in touch with the real authentic me, my true self, and was better aligned with the real world around me. 

It was only after my LDS mission as a self-indoctrinated "ordained minister," and priest, spending 24 hours a day for two years (from age 19 to 21) isolated from outside secular influences and friends, that after this cultish lifestyle for two years (at such an impressionable and formable age), I inevitably developed the identity of "Mormon Priest." This led to an obsession with religious topics and philosophy for decades afterward: due to such intense cultish indoctrination as a missionary for two whole years at such a young and impressionable age living in total isolation and knowing and absorbing nothing but Mormonism. 

If I had not been indoctrinated into a high demand religion in this way, I would not have experienced religious  trauma syndrome and existential angst  after the mission later on in my mid 20s after my "Mormon testimony" unraveled and I lost the LDS identity and meaning-making worldview that I had constructed in my head those two years as a missionary.  For this caused me to struggle in my mid 20s and 30s, trying to adapt to secular life outside the culish box of doctrinaire lifestyle Mormonism. 

I did eventually recover however from being indoctrinated into sainthood in childhood and as a missionary, as slowly overtime I began moving towards what I call the path of creatorhood; and developed new meaning-making purpose while growing toward my authentic self, which I talk about here. 

During the time as a teenager (ages 14-17), when I was free of the "dogma goggles," I could just be my true self. In fact, most of my high school friends did not know I was LDS. I did attend LDS dances during this time but treated them basically as a secular venue as a normal teenager. For religion never came up at the LDS dances and even some non-LDS would attend them. 

When I was suddenly thrust into full Mormon priestly activity at age 18 in preparation to be a missionary due to peer pressure and years of unconscious indoctrination influencing my decision, it all happened so fast that it felt like all of a sudden before I knew it I was in a Mormon temple being told at age 18 that these new pair of religious underwear I was given in the temple (to protect me from the power of Satan!) would be my new fashion attire for the rest of my life! Thus I could no longer wear tank tops, which I was fond of doing as a weightlifter as a teenager in the 1990s. I was shocked and felt mentally imprisoned in that moment. It felt like my life was being stolen and swept out from under me, but in my mind it felt like I had no choice but to conform due to all the religious peer pressure and love bombing at church the minute I agreed to be a missionary. All of which was overwhelming me by that point, for on an unconscious level it felt like an invisible hand was always behind my back pushing me toward sainthood and being a full time Mormon missionary (the invisible hand being what Freud called the superego, meaning cultural and societal peer pressure basically).  So before I new it I was thrust into a full blown cult lifestyle where I did nothing but read, think about, and preach Mormon theology and dogma, for over 12+ hours a day (except "prep day"), for two years, from age 19 to 20.

Not only did I not want to be a Priest growing up, but I don't think most LDS kids really want that duty and responsibility but are socially preprogrammed into it. This means that post-sainthood not only freed me from a lifelong lifestyle as a pious Priest, but I see now twenty years after my church resignation around 2004, that my choice has rescued my nephews and future generations from being culturally indoctrinated into an unwanted life of priestly sainthood and life denying pious perfectionism. For by my example and voice, many in my family have been freed from this high demand cultish lifestyle. For example, see this video where an Elder David A. Bendar puts some poor kid on the spot and makes him cry in the process of teaching him a lesson on pious perfectionism. This is a good example of the psychological manipulation tactics performed on kids who grow up LDS. Watching this one video, one can objectively see how the indoctrination begins early and is psychologically damaging to the psyche of the child. 

An Analogy from a John Travolta Movie

A good analogy from the movies, is John Travolta's character in the 1977 movie Saturday Night Fever. Travolta's character respects his brother who is a Priest, but he definitely does not want to be one. Same with me. Now that I have had this "revelation" that I never even wanted to be a Priest, I'm starting to move on with my life a little more, and to think a little less about religion; and so my "true self" is now able to more fully emerge. It will take time however, as I do have a habit of thinking and writing about religion and philosophy after being a minister for two years on my mission. Like Travolta's brother in the movie above, I still have that mindset of being a Priest which is still "sticky" in my subconscious after years of religious cultural indoctrination growing up in the LDS Church.

From the movie Saturday Night Fever

(Source)

Travolta's character is enjoying normal life in the movie and although he has a few character flaws (one being a womanizer), he ends up becoming a better person, i.e. closer to a "good person" by the end of the film. In the movie, at one point Travolta's characters' brother leaves the Catholic priesthood and shows up to the dance club to hang out. In the movie, the former-priest brother realizes that he has basically been so indoctrinated that he feels uncomfortable in that secular culture (at least that's my interpretation). Well, I don't want to be like that brother who is a priest, so indoctrinated he is feels awkward. I want to be more like John Travolta's character by the end of the film who again becomes a better person. No I don't want to emulate the womanizer part of his character depicted earlier in the film. I am referring to his zest for life, his acceptance of his human instincts and the yin and yang of life as expressed in his dancing, rather than repressing his true self to be a priest like his brother. Just as the brother who was a priest is clearly troubled seeking to adapt to life outside the priesthood, after you are mentally shackled and repressed with LDS garments and a priestly mentality and playing the role of a priest with the chronic saintly attitude of a priest, it takes awhile for that sainthood to rub off. 

Again, I never truly wanted to be a priest growing up but after being indoctrinated and culturally pressured into putting on that priestly mask, it took me years to take off that pious mask. I am actually kind of angry now as an adult that much of my youth was pretty much stolen from me with unnecessary and unhealthy internal angst, scrupulosity, and anti-Life piety from all the cultish indoctrination. This makes me mad sometimes when I think about other non-Mormon teenagers I knew growing up who lived normal lives and were not culturally coerced into being saintly priests at such a young age; who were not pre-molded into becoming priests by age 12 and conditioned their whole life to be ministers for two years on a mission as teenagers. For after being indoctrinated into that priestly path of sainthood from infancy to young adulthood, it took me years to undo most of the cultish psychological programing (and I'm still undoing some of it). 

Why I'm Not a Latter-day Saint in a Nutshell

This blog is about why I'm not a Latter-day Saint (aka, not a "Brighamite Mormon"). The simplest explanation as to my main reasons for not being LDS is in the official title of the LDS Church itself, "The Church of ... Latter-day Saints." All LDS males as "Saints" also become Priests holding the Priesthood. I don't want to be a Priest or a Saint. For to be a "Saint" means to be a Holy One, meaning one who is called out from, separated from, the alleged unholy physical world and the "worldly." I explain this meaning of Saint in more detail here. Furthermore, I don't think it's the "Latter Days" when, for example, every generation of Christians for the last 2000 plus years have thought they were living in the alleged "latter days." What if its just today? 

After contemplating the option of New Order Mormonism for a few years around 2018, I simply had an epiphany one day in 2024, which was that I don't want to be a Mormon Priest. Yes I know that Mormons don't use the word priest that often and instead prefer the term "priesthood holder," but that is essentially what most LDS men are, a Priest. Growing up, I had zero interest in ever being a Priest.

Being an LDS Priest includes believing that you have alleged magical/supernatural powers to heal people, even paraplegics if its "God's will" to heal them through you; of course, it is never expected that God will heal amputees, i.e. grow back a severed limb. Even "God" has his limits apparently. Note that here I am not claiming "miracles" are not possible, only that in all my 40+ years of life on the planet the most likely expectation I have daily is that the world or reality operates by the consistent laws of nature as explained by science. The sky is blue, water's wet, spark plugs spark, cars travel, and cups fall when you drop them; all of it rational, consistent, and what I would expect in a natural world. People actually talking in tongues (spontaneously speaking a foreign language), prophesying the actual future, or a guy flying up into the sky, or malicious ghosts spirit-possessing people needing an exorcism, or malevolent spirits appearing to cause harm and thus the need for another to "discern the spirits" (per 1 Cor. 12:10; D&C 129), or the saying of magic words over a severed limb causing it to grow back, just does not happen, ever in my life. When I go to the local Walmart in broad daylight there are just no demons flying around like in the movie Ghostbusters, no demons possessing people and thus no need for someone's alleged "priesthood power" to perform an exorcism. If someone has a headache I don't think an LDS Priest needs to exorcise the headache-demon, for during New Testament times they thought everything was caused by demons, even headaches!

As an LDS Priest it is literally believed that you can allegedly exorcize evil spirits (actual demons!), which I don't believe in and consider such ideas superstitious, dangerous, and often harmful (e.g. Lori Vallow Daybell and Ruby Franke). In fact, I ran across this video Why I Left The Mormon (LDS) Church by Starr Adara in 2024, and she described very similar experiences to what I went through over twenty years earlier growing up Mormon. This made me realize the LDS Church and its theology had not changed at all; they had not become more scientific and humanistic, as this young woman was terrified of being demon possessed and full of shame and scrupulosity. 

This woke me up to the fact that they can't change the dogma, because a literal boogeyman type Devil and evil spirits is all over LDS scriptures and sermons. The whole system is designed to induce fear and paranoia and a world-phobia; causing one to cling to the insider cult comfort zone of LDS culture and the precalculated inducement of safe and secure feelings within the insulated structure of the LDS institution; which then controls minds and shames and tames people into obedient submission and "Brethren worship." 

So that's probably the simplest explanation as to why I am not LDS (nor a nuanced Cultural Mormon) right there!

The bottom line is once you study biological evolution, the "reptilian brain," and evolutionary psychology, which explains why we have desires and instincts in the first place (as covered by Dr. Paul Dobransky M.D., here, here, and here), then believing a Sin-virus is influencing our biology becomes for me crazy talk.

 After one studies the origin of the Devil character (which I cover in my website here), then believing in a literal Satan becomes akin to believing in a literal Boogeyman. In other words, once one studies the sciences in general, then the error-correcting method (or epistemology) of logical reasoning and the scientific method becomes a lit candle shining a bright light of truth and clarity onto the primitive darkness and potential harm of a "demon haunted world."

Sainthood vs. Good Character

I believe in trying to be a "good person." I just don't think the philosophical or Stoic concept of the Good Life for example, and "good-personhood" if you will, are the same thing; for seeking LDS sainthood and exaltation through the LDS "covenant path" is not necessarily the same thing as becoming an actual good person and living the Good Life. This will become more clear as I proceed.

 Marcus Borg once said, "You can believe all the right things, and still be a jerk." So too, you can perform all the right rituals and present an image of saintliness but still be a jerk. This is actually demonstrated in the Gospels themselves where Jesus spends a lot of his time condemning the performative dogmatic religious types: who appear holy and righteous on the outside like a gravestone painted white on the outside but are like a rotting corpse on the inside. In other words, they appear pious on the outside but inside their poor character is like a rotting corpse (see Mathew 23: 26-28). For the problem that can and does easily arise in religions like Mormonism, is that because they function as a kind of "checklist spirituality," it can lead to people maintaining a certain facade, a performative mask of piety, while behind closed doors acting like jerks; and/or merely checking the boxes of holy piety but where no holy rules are found poor character abounds. 

This is because such a religious system is more often performative rather than actually influencing an authentic character transformation through a reasoning out of why one is choosing the ethical life in the first place. When one is merely obeying holy rules and learning to wear a holy mask or persona and perform holiness (sainthood), one often never internalizes good reasons for being ethical and developing good character. 

For example, D&C 121: 34-46 eloquently points out the inherent potential for corruption with a lay priesthood hierarchy, arguing that it's the nature of almost all men to abuse their position of high status, authority and power. Ironically, just a few years later Joseph Smith then says and does just that: exercising an abuse of power over his wife Emma by attempting to manipulate her into submission under the false pretense of the alleged authority and power of a revelation (see D&C 132), wherein Joseph Smith threatens her with destruction if she further objects to and gets in the way of his freely taking unto himself multiple wives and concubines, despite his original promise to her to be monogamous; and his previous approval of the 1835 edition of D&C 101 which declared monogamy as the doctrinal law of the LDS Church.

So, if the prophet, seer and revelator, Joseph Smith himself, can get caught up in talking piously against unrighteous dominion one day, but then turn around and behave unrighteously, then could it be that the LDS "system of holiness" itself being based on the revelatory whims of Smith, make for an internal flaw built into the system itself? 

In other words, if ethics can't be a reasoning toward right action -- with say an appeal to Nature like with the the Stoics, or by an appeal to the Middle Way by Aristotle, Buddha, and Confucious etc., -- but instead right and wrong is only determined by the whims of alleged seers and revelators of a god's will, then we end up with contradictory moralities do we not?

For example, Smith revealed in scripture that he canonized, that monogamy is morally right in the year 1835; but then in 1843, Smith revealed that God himself allegedly said the following to his wife Emma through a letter Joseph Smith dictated by alleged revelation, that has "God" saying to Emma:

... as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse [plurally marry] a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law [of celestial plural marriage], he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

(D&C 132: 61-62)

Meanwhile Emma is told in this same fabulous revelation from on high, to accept this godly arrangement of Smith being given multiple virgin brides; and Emma is warned by the Creator of the universe himself, that she must have sex with only Joseph Smith and not divorce him, or "God" will destroy her:

Verse 54: And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this [plural marriage] commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my [polygamy] law.

Verse 64: And again, verily, verily, I say unto you [Emma], if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

I don't know about you dear reader, but I find such "scripture" passages to be a clear cut case against an appeal to divine revelation and an appeal to the whims of a so-called seer and revelator, as the path to knowing right and wrong.

A more common example is how some, no not all, LDS members will perform an appearance of "niceness" most of the time, but then falsely slander a family member who is questioning the truth claims of the LDS Church. 

Some or many (no, not all) LDS teachers will preach on the lost sheep and the 99, but when it comes to actually showing genuine empathy and curiosity for the perspective of the disaffected member, there will often be little to no empathy shown toward those who doubt the dogma. This is because maintaining the pure image of the Holy LDS Institution is more important than the perceived unholy doubter. Again, no not all LDS members act this way and some LDS will leave the 99 and care for the one doubting and questioning member. But in my own personal experience, while their are exceptions to the rule, most LDS will in one way or another, make the questioner and doubter feel unaccepted, unworthy, and ultimately unwelcome. And this is to be expected given the paradigm of safeguarding the insulated cult of sainthood from the perceived threat of unholy and wicked outsiders.  

So not all but some LDS people can "check all the boxes" of piety but not have a true transformation of character toward becoming a truly good person. However, to be fair many LDS are genuinely good people and authentically "nice" despite the ideal of sainthood and the fear of unholiness and doubters infiltrating the LDS Fold. So while the system allows for and often promotes a performative pious mask of perfect sainthood, many LDS do undergo a true transformation of character within the system itself and are good persons and/or better people because of it. 

Explaining to a True Believing Mormon why I am Not LDS nor a New Order Mormon

I sat down across the table from a true believing LDS relative at lunch in 2024. I decided to explain why I was not going to continue to try and be a Mormon again. This relative knew I had resigned years before around 2005, and he had seen me become more friendly toward the LDS Church from around 2018 to 2024. During this time I attended the LDS Church sporadically with this relative. He knew I had not been active nor believing from 2005 to about 2018. So I decided to explain why I had been considering being LDS again and why I finally decided that I can't be LDS, even as a nuanced non-literal type of LDS member.




I explained that for the last 5 years or so I have been considering being a Cultural Mormon; but at the end of the day, I realized that to make that work I would basically have to lie. This did not sit well with me in the end. I explained that there is a growing number of Mormons who, for many reasons, whether to maintain a relationship with a true believing LDS spouse, or fear of being ostracized from their LDS community, or fear of losing a job or just seeking a cultural identity, etc., they seek to maintain their membership in the LDS Church as a New Order Mormon (meaning one who doubts some or most of LDS dogma but wish to be active in LDS culture). I explained that since I had resigned my LDS membership back around 2005, I did not feel any social pressure to follow this path but had been entertaining the idea voluntarily since around 2018.




I could walk away clean without losing a spouse or a job or losing my social community (which I had already lost when I resigned). So for me, the reason for reconsidering being a non-literalist LDS member again was based largely in my basically developing a way to appreciate Mormonism from a more humanistic and Nietzschean perspective (which I discuss in this blog). It realized that an appreciation of the 1840s era philosophy of Mormonism is not the same thing as practicing doctrinaire Brighamite Mormonism.




I explained that since I cannot bring myself to be a literal believer in LDS truth claims, that rejoining the LDS Church would entail me on at least some level pretending to be a literal believer in order to fit in socially. For most LDS members in a congregation are true believers. I decided I could not live that way, wearing a pretend mask in order to fit in. I said I understand why others might follow that path if say they live in Utah or Idaho and nearly everyone around them is LDS, but living in California its actually outside the norm to be LDS. He agreed that it doesn't work unless you literally believe in it like he did.




I further shared that I had contemplated being a nuanced non-literal LDS member for a few years as a theoretical option without actually going through with it, after I had run across the website churchistrue.com (where a non-literal believing LDS member presents a way to be LDS through the perspective of Liberal Christianity, and utilizing the insights from theologians like Marcus Borg); as well as speaking to atheist and agnostic New Order Mormons through the Fair LDS website email, and through email having these nontheistic LDS members talk about how they make being LDS work for them while they actually doubt some or most of the supernatural truth claims. I mentioned StayLDS.org which gives advice to nuanced cultural Mormons for staying in the LDS Church and culture and finding ways to honestly pass worthiness interviews without sacrificing one's integrity.
Looking back, beginning around 2015, I began trying to reconstruct my former Christian and LDS beliefs through the perspective lens of theologians like Marcus Borg. I can see now that I was desperately trying to retrofit a nonliteral-theology into literalistic LDS theology. In other words, I was trying to fit a naturalistic-metaphorical point of view into a supernatural box (a boxed up scriptural fundamentalist view held by the majority of LDS). These documents below reveal just how sincere I was in my attempt to form a "rational testimony" if you will. With just a quick scan of these documents, one can see just how hard I tried to be Mormon again from a nuanced perspective. I now see it as a desperate attempt on my part during a span of about five years, to make sense of the insensible, to ignore the obvious and try to defend the indefensible. It reminds me of the Bible scholar Bart Ehrman sharing a story of him trying to create an apologetic defense of the Gospel of Mark regarding some of its errors, and he writes this long academic paper which was really a form of apologetics and his professor simply writes on the paper something like, "Maybe Mark just made a mistake?" This made Ehrman realize he was twisting his mind into mental pretzels trying to avoid the obvious.

What my documents linked below point out for me now, is that this nonliteral version of Mormonism basically removed the bread and butter of Brighamite Mormonism, which is literalistic supernaturalism or the magic worldview. What I do in my Liberal Christian and Nuanced-Mormon documents below is desperately try to make Christianity and Mormonism fit into a 21st century scientific enlightenment worldview just as Marcus Borg tried to do for Christianity. I see now that my Episcopalianish version of LDS Christianity, just does not actually fit LDS Church dogma and practice. Furthermore, the part of Mormonism I did like, the Nauvoo era pro-bodied philosophy, is completely ignored in LDS doctrine and culture nowadays because the top LDS Leaders are trying to align the Church with the Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals. Thus my anti-Puritan pre-1900 version of Mormonism conflicts with the post-1900 Puritan ideology of today's LDS Christianity.

So that the reader can see just how sincere I was and hard I tried to be a theologically-liberal Mormon, here are some of the documents I composed:

•  A New Kind of LDS-Christianity

•  An Emergent Mormon Re-reads the Book of Mormon from an Emergent Perspective & Realizes it's Philosophical and Artistic Value

• An Emergent Mormon Re-Reads the Doctrine and Covenants

• The Gold Plates & Second Sight: A Theory of how Joseph Smith was a Sincere Perceiver through the Eyes of Faith 

• A Reasonable Argument on How  “Dark Skin” is Not About Skin Pigmentation in LDS Scripture

I realized however that I cannot make the path of a New Order Mormon work for me, that I was just a different kind of person, that I had crossed over the bridge to a post-Enlightenment worldview, and for many other reasons. I pointed out that I also thought being LDS just fits some people's personality better than others, like this relative for whom being Mormon just fit more naturally for him. For this relative, being LDS aligned perfectly with his core nature and personality so that he fit snugly into the Mormon cultural mold and it's particular supernatural worldview; while for me it always felt like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I just don't fit into it. He actually agreed with me. In fact, most LDS I had this discussion with basically told me I can't be LDS with this more metaphorical nuanced view. 

The reason I had even contemplated returning to the LDS Church around 2018 was because, despite my naturalistic (scientific) worldview, my personality was still a mix of the more artistic and mystic side of my extended family combined the more left-brain, analytical, engineer types in my family. This artistic and mystic-oriented side to myself, is one of the reasons I considered being Mormon again. I realized however, that being a "mystic" is not enough, you really don't fit into Mormonism unless you are a "religious traditionalist" and a true believing supernatural literalist, believing in a literal Devil and a Second Coming of Jesus akin to Santa Clause is coming to town, etc. The truth is I believe in none of that. So to fit in and pass the LDS "worthiness" interviews I would, on some level, have to be pretending and lying and/or obfuscating and misleading everyone to one degree or another, which I ethically won't do. So after entertaining that route for a few years, even trying to see how far I could stretch myself to sincerely believe in the doctrines even if from a more metaphorical non-literal perspective, I finally decided I just can't do it; that it conflicts with my own moral compass to do so.

Why I entertained the process for over four years was because in the process of trying to reconstruct a nuanced Mormon faith, I felt a sense of empowerment reconnecting with my old LDS identity from childhood and young adulthood. There was something powerful about the idea of being part of a larger community, a bonded tribe of people, "putting our shoulder to the wheel, pressing on," together, unified, hive-like, elevated, and ideally happy.

 The problem was, the cement and mortar that kept the structure together was apocalyptic end-times urgency, a devil delusion, demon-phobia, belief in curses and blessings, sin-staining ideas, nocebo effects, scrupulosity, and the potential for religious trauma syndrome, which was most often psychologically harmful; as well as the constant maintaining of a literal belief in an angel taking the gold plates back up to heaven, the Lamanites as actual historical persons, a post-resurrection Jesus visiting the Americas, and the actual biblical Abraham appearing in the Pearl of Great Price, all of which I had intellectually deconstructed as very likely and untrue; and thus I could not put my new wineskins of post Enlightenment rationalism and theologically-liberal Christianity back into the old wineskins of LDS scriptural-fundamentalism and literalistic supernaturalism. 

I was no longer a "it's the latter days," fearful and paranoid Saint, afraid of an adversarial Devil like a child afraid of a boogeyman under his or her bed. I was never again going to jump through the holy hoops of an institution hanging the labels worthy or unworthy over my head, causing one to chronically seek the impossible status of a pure and perfect saint.

 I had thus come to terms with the reality of the situation by 2024. I could not treat the LDS Church like more theologically-liberal and scholarly churches like the Episcopalian Church USA or the RLDS (Community of Christ); for the Brighamite LDS institution was not a mere spiritual social club or family-based fraternity, but a controlling and quite cultish high demand religion. 

Moving Beyond Sainthood

Once it hit me in 2024 that I don't want to be a Priest, I realized that it was pointless to try and be a New Order Mormon. For being LDS is not like in other theologically-liberal Christian groups where you are just a lay member without "priestly duties." In Brighamite Mormonism, every male member becomes a priest. So why would I even try to be an "Edgy Mormon," or New Order Mormon, when the truth was I have never even wanted to be a Priest.

The fact is, I realized that I don't want the title or the alleged supernatural-responsibilities of a Priest, which again includes the alleged authority and responsibility of casting out devils and magically healing illnesses and even paralyzed people. Believing in such archaic superstitious nonsense sounds utterly crazy to me now. I now realize that I don't want to be asked to be at someone's hospital bed and made to feel that the very words I say may impact the person's recovery (for example some prayer studies even show adverse effects, i.e. if the person feels social pressure). So being a nuanced LDS member would mean pretending you believe in all that, which I don't, at all.

Another major reason I don't want to be a nuanced LDS member is I don't want to have to wear a mask of piety and wear magic underwear and dress in a performative shirt and tie attempting to convey a pious holier than thou appearance. I do not want to basically have the role of a professional Priest, nor do I ascent to feeling peer pressured into "ministering" out of a sense of priestly duty rather than genuine interest or desire; nor do I ascent to being coerced into unwanted callings, or giving talks at the pulpit, all of which are priestly duties that in other churches priests and clergy get professionally trained and paid to perform. Those who do go into ministry are also usually extroverted and so such a role in ministry fits their personality. I'm mostly an introvert in personality style, so being a priestly Mormon does not fit my personality at all.

I don't buy the common LDS Church claim that their is no paid clergy, when the LDS General Authorities and other LDS members do in fact get paid, meanwhile the LDS institution is a billion dollar corporation. If an LDS member wants to volunteer to perform priestly roles without pay that is fine, that's their choice; but from my perspective, the LDS institution itself takes advantage of member's belief in the Church as the "only true church" and gateway to the celestial kingdom, so that they feel that it is their priestly duty to spend hours performing priestly roles without any pay or professional training. All because they believe it is necessary for achieving a higher degree of salvation (i.e. exaltation) in heaven.

Never in my life growing up did I ever dream of being a Priest. Growing up I never planned on being a Priest. That was never my goal. I see now that I was slowly tricked into that role, in a way, as I was socially peer pressured into accepting that role beginning at the young and impressionable age of only 12 years old; and then later was peer pressured into going on a two year mission as a full-time "minister of the restored gospel." If you had asked me as a teenager when I was inactive in the LDS Church, if I saw myself becoming a priest or minister/missionary, I would have said no way! Funny how a religious institution and social conformity can change your mind. For when I turned 18 and saw all my LDS friends and acquaintances going on missions, and my own inactive LDS brother I was close to all of a sudden deciding to go on a mission, and everyone in my family and most of my extended family were just expecting me to go on a mission, it was a almost pre-determined that I would end up going on a mission from all the social pressure, which I did. Looking back at this in hindsight, as an adult, I can see clearly now that growing up in the Brighamite LDS Church, I was not really given an actual choice (as Elder Bednar admits) of entering into the life of an LDS Priest and Minister as a missionary (note that LDS missionaries are ministers of the restored gospel): as that path was basically chosen for me, beginning when I was only 12 years old and given the priesthood and then it was continually indoctrinated into my subconscious from then on, so that following the LDS priestly trajectory was a foregone conclusion in many ways. For after years of childhood religious indoctrination and massive peer pressure in my teens to conform to that role as expected of me by nearly everyone around me, I was basically programmed to talk my own self into going on a mission. For with all that social pressure, not going on a mission was not really an option in my mind subconsciously. 

In Conclusion

This concludes the introduction to this blog. In my next chronological series of posts I define sainthood, the real meaning of being a saint, and explain the priestly caste; as well as alternative worldviews and ethical systems outside of Mormonism which can be found in my Table of Contents. 

In my forthcoming blog posts I will basically talk about my journey beyond sainthood and towards my authentic self and fullest humanity.