DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:53 am

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:43 pm

Well, Joseph Smith was definitely having sex with lots of women. Ron Jeremy also had sex with lots of women. But I don’t believe they were alpha males. I think they were betas who’s sexual strategies involved manipulation, maybe coercion, and other angles that actually compensated for their lack of desirability.

??? Who did Ron Jeremy manipulate or coerce? The women were paid to have sexual intercourse with him. He himself didn't do the recruiting at all. On the contrary, he was being paid to make love to them just as much as they were being paid to make love to him.

It's not analogous to Joseph Smith's situation at all.

It is, actually. Ron Jeremy is in jail. He is a monster. He recruited and exploited and he will likely die in prison.

The Book of Mormon is complex? Dexter was a good series? Hmm.

Biologically speaking, polygamy is a losing strategy. As you noted, sexual instincts aren't for monogamy for reasons and that includes female instincts against sticking with the so-called alpha. Evolution favors diversity and a variety of adaptations so that there are greater odds life can carry on when environmental change occurs. Inherent in this idea of fitness is the gory reality of failure of the less fit alternatives.

Social evolution being faster than biological evolution, our success as a species is more significantly tied to the relative success or failure of our memes more so than our genes. In many way, our million-year old primitive genetic instincts are behind the evolutionary curve of our socio-cultural evolution by millennia.

That's why biology isn't ethics. And it's why Smith finding a successful social meme in his highly plastic, reactive 19th century religious claims can't be said to have been following a successful biological strategy when he used his position to gratify his biological sexual urges. The polygamy nearly led to the ruin of Mormonism, and the memes that allowed it to survive into the 20th century clipped those social norms just as a tiger readily catches and kills weaker prey.

Since Joseph's time our society has evolved memes regarding consent, regarding gender identity, gender equality, regarding sex in general that Mormonism struggles with and usually ends up evolving socially to survive.

So, you want to know what morality I judge Smith on? Eusocial human society succeeded over other alternatives due to complex adaptations involving group interactions where the group become the evolutionary successful organism over that of the individual. Larger groups, more complex interactions. Violating trust, behaving as a freeloader who takes more than one gives all trigger biological reactions that have social consequences.

So you and I? We recognized Smith wasn't trustworthy and his social organization lost strength and cohesion because of it. That's eusocial failure. Hear that sound of thousands of modern people finding that social order unfavorable? That's eusocial failure.

You want to smash with lots of people? Look to your own times for understanding the success and failure strategies, what's socially successful compared to socially aberrant behavior. Smith's biological urges were always undermining the success of his religious manipulation as primative instinct easily does in complex social organizations. The deception, though, is what undermines the idea he was modeling successful behavior. It got him lynched. It turned his friends against him. It leads countless individuals today to abandon his (unrecognizable) creation. Deception is a matter of ethics. And it's what he is judged on most, and most correctly.

Free Ranger wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:21 am

Keep in mind though that Smith was mostly good at organizing alliances and generating camaraderie, not perfect, but you don't create a fast-growing world religion without some cohesive skills. Again, we can’t forget his strong egalitarian leanings sprinkled throughout his scriptures, which has led some to argue that Mormon scripture actually promotes Socialist Democracy

History suggests Smith was not the organizer but rather the charismatic face who needed partnerships for his success.

The attempts to create the Book of Mormon were an abysmal failure until Oliver Cowdery showed up and the Whitmers became involved. Cowdery and Smith collaborated on the creation of the church and by all accounts Oliver was the skilled organizer. When Rigdon joined in 1831, Smith/Rigdon and Cowdery/Whitmers came into competition and the church split into two. Rigdon and Smith controlled the Ohio church where Rigdon had ties while Cowdery and the Whitmers went to Missouri. Both ran into conflict with their surrounding neighbors but ultimately the Missouri group got things sorted while the Ohio saints fell apart. Smith and Rigdon went to Missouri and took over that group as a result, and exiled their competition through excommunication. They then crashed that group and had to move to Illinois where Smith abandoned Rigdon for Bennett and the inner circle of his sex scheme. When that was exposed the results ultimately led to his lynching.

Smith wasn't egalitarian. He simply lacked the means of production on his own so it was benefitial to him and his family to espouse it. No Mormon society was a successful model of egalitarian living while other groups of the time did give it a legit go. Why did Mormonism struggle with the law of consecration and the short lived experiment fail? Because it has always been a hierarchy.

Cultellus wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:07 am

It is, actually. Ron Jeremy is in jail. He is a monster. He recruited and exploited and he will likely die in prison.

Wait, what's this? Off to Wikipedia I go. . .

Free Ranger wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:37 am

I think that if you had read the same biological sciences and other things I have read there would be less disagreement. But then again you imply you have read the exact same books I have and the same sciences. So, I don't know?

Free Ranger: In my reading of what you're saying, the ideas you've put down in this thread aren't referencing biological science; they're nursing from the teat of one sorry strain of evolutionary psychology--mostly as interpreted by Jordan Peterson (who trained neither as biologist nor evolutionary psychologist).

To give one example, I think you misrepresent Frans de Waal. Sure, he's famous for maintaining that humans are still basically apes (hardly a new concept), but his work with bonobos has much more to do with promiscuity and cooperation than alpha male dominance.

But you're still working out what to think. Good for you. I'd caution that it's not all evopsych and Vikings. Try someone like Yuval Noah Harari for a different approach.

Good luck.

Gabriel wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:44 am

Free Ranger wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:23 pm

I'm sensing a bit of anger and hostility in your tone. Am I mistaken? Did I say something that specifically offended you?

I already answered your question by stating:

You did not answer the questions that I asked you. You then stated, "I doubt that the majority of biological scientists use the fuzzy, unscientific term 'in tune with nature ..." From that sparky comment, I presume that you think you have superior knowledge about what scientists would say about this subject. So I ask again, "How do you think the majority of biological scientists who study what I'm talking about would respond to your question about down syndrome?"

I didn't answer your questions because you chose not to answer mine. You use the term "in tune with nature" in a manner that admits of exclusion. I have no problems with that, but I do not understand exactly what you mean by being "in tune with nature". You were the one who introduced that term in the title of this forum. By your own admission, you are a tall, muscular, intelligent man and you certainly are not loath to share your opinions on a multitude of subjects. Therefore, I thought it apropos to ask a simple question to see whether or not, in your opinion, there is some kind of demark that separates one who is "in tune with nature" from another who is not.

I asked you whether or not a child with down syndrome is "in tune with nature". I wasn't asking for a dogmatic answer. But surely you have an opinion. Surely with all that Viking blood in you, you should be able to muster up the courage to share your plain and precious opinion. But, I will tell you what, to make it easier for you, I will phrase this as a multiple-choice question:

By your OWN definition of what it means to be in tune with nature, is a child with down syndrome in tune with nature?

1) Yes, a child with down syndrome is in tune with nature.
2) No, a child with down syndrome is not in tune with nature.
3) I don't know whether or not a child with down syndrome is in tune with nature.

Hiding behind a majority of biological scientists who study what you are talking about isn't going to cut it, Sunny Jim. Remember, you are a Viking. Your mighty forbears did not waste their time writing extravagant "Happiness Letters" to the villagers before they raped and pillaged. But, if you would rather go the scholarly route, that's fine. Although, I am sure that you have dozens of sources at your fingertips, I think that it would be nice if you can provide one quote from any reputable biological scientist who writes of down syndrome in terms of being "in (or out of) tune with nature." Just one. A single quote. A wafer-thin quote. That's all.

I read what you wrote a couple of times and each time it made me giggle. I see what you're trying to do. It reminds me of the time after college I tried substitute teaching for a brief stint; high school students love to goad the teacher into such ongoing interactions by asking the kind of questions you ask.

Gabriel, buddy, you seem to be taking this way too personal. It is just philosophizing on a computer screen. I have no idea why you are taking this so personally when I have not made it personal with you. But you are trying very hard to make it personal toward me. Again why the anger and hostility? If you won't answer that question then I probably will stop responding to you.

If you attempt to goad me further by referencing my Viking ancestry again, and my stature, implying "I'm not man enough to engage you further," or something like that (as you've already attempted); I would simply reply I have no interest in beating my chest against a computer screen. In a digital format true machismo, if that is what your after, will come across through intellectual discussion. That is going to be how I express my masculinity not a never-ending tit-for-tat of words which I would find childish on my part to engage in further.

I would much rather go out and "flex my muscles" in the weight room or the boxing ring or making money for my family. This is a recreational activity for me. I owe you nothing Gabrieal, not a single more ounce of my time if I don't feel like it. I engaged this public forum to possibly change my mind and stimulate thought for further reflection on my part. I'm not interested in acting macho with you like two rams butting heads, it's not making me money and not stimulating thought.

I find it interesting that you seem to be trying to poke holes in my contention that nature produces people like Joseph Smith, and so on atheism he was just a product of nature. In the process, in this thread I argued that Alpha Males are products of nature. I suspect you have a problem with saying Joseph Smith's "alphaness" was a product of nature. I would guess that you personally condemn such Alpha Behavior. Yet your responses toward me display alpha male aggressive traits. You seem to be wanting to to use verbal power plays to get the upper hand: using sarcasm, snarkiness and indirect insults. If you had come at it from a more polite and "Christian" (i.e. civil) demeanor, then your seeming concern for people with down syndrome would make more sense. To be clear, I never said anything about down syndrome. The fact that your own nature is driving you toward anger and hostility and attempting to one-up me is making my argument for me. What if I was autistic? If I was, would your behavior be appropriate?

Again you are taking things way too personal in your responses. I'm simply having a philosophical discussion. The theme of which is how can we as atheists and agnostics have moral outrage and moral indignation against Smith when he is a product of Nature; and your own behavior toward me Gabriel is a product of nature. How can you condemn Joseph Smith when you are revealing similar characteristic traits?

You also bring up the history of Vikings and pillaging. Are you aware that many Caucasian people today are the product of Viking raids and sex with Vikings?

I seem to have really got under your skin by asking you to live up to your own apparent claims that you are superior in knowledge to me on the subject, so you tell me the answer to your own question.

On Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:42 pm, I already answered your question:

In tune with a man's nature to be more specific I guess, without social constructs and Puritanical morality. In other words, according to the science I have read men's biology instilled in men natural drives toward seeking territory, rank and power; which increases the man's prospects for spreading his seed. The same could be said of our ape relatives. Or, and I'm just asking, are you someone who denies evolution and that we are apes? Just want to understand where you are coming from.

How do you think the majority of biological scientists who study what I'm talking about would respond to your question about down syndrome?

Then on Sunday, Octb31, I followed up your refusal to answer my question by saying:

You did not answer the questions that I asked you. You then stated, "I doubt that the majority of biological scientists use the fuzzy, unscientific term 'in tune with nature ..." From that sparky comment, I presume that you think you have superior knowledge about what scientists would say about this subject. So I ask again, "How do you think the majority of biological scientists who study what I'm talking about would respond to your question about down syndrome?"

You have not answered my questions Gabriel; and in fact you have turned around and made my overall argument for me. You are seeking territory, rank and power. We are engaged in a stand-off, you asked me an irrelevant question (in my view) and I gave you a response. Asked and answered, Gabriel.

At this point I predict you're going to up the ante and make more snarky comments and attempt to insult me further. Your ego is clearly involved, and you're angry and hostile for no good reason. I have had the courage to express my thoughts and even divulge personal information and backed up my thoughts with arguments; you seem to be the one who is hiding. Hiding behind your anger and not answering my questions. I don't know anything about you.

Again, you are making my arguments for me. You won't answer my questions because I think you want to feel superior in knowledge, just like Joseph Smith sought to do (as we see in the King Follett Discourse as he tries to one-up the scholars of his day by claiming a superior knowledge of Hebrew).

Are you are afraid to answer your own question because it might reveal you are not superior in knowledge? Again, your communication in this thread makes my arguments for me to a large degree.

I'm going to presume you are an atheist, as that was the audience I was primarily addressing in the start of this thread. I pointed out that, on atheism it is difficult to have moral outrage against Joseph Smith as a product of nature.

You seem to make moral judgements against Joseph Smith for having alpha male traits and yet you yourself are exhibiting similar alpha male traits: being aggressive, one upping me, insulting me, goading me, and manipulating me into further interaction. While I have done nothing to instigate this and have said nothing to you personally. Are you aware of this behavior of yours?

I would venture to say that you would argue that Joseph Smith was a big jerk who was aggressive and manipulative with people, and insulted people, etc., and that was wrong, right Gabriel? Do you get where I'm going with this? You're acting like the person I presume you have condemned with moral outrage, while you yourself (with your own nature) are acting similar?

For example, you bring up the Happiness Letter, mocking my ancestry saying, "Your mighty forbears did not waste their time writing extravagant 'Happiness Letters' ..." In the Happiness Letter, Joseph Smith is being an aggressive male seeking sex and trying to goad Nancy into the response he wants, and manipulates her in his writings. And your behavior is likewise an aggressive male seeking superiority over another male and trying to goad him into a response and using manipulative tactics to do so. Yet, you probably have great moral indignation against Joseph Smith when he displayed the same or a similar nature and behavior as you are displaying?

Can you see the irony in that?

You seem to delight in mocking my Viking ancestry and my physical stature while verbally coming off someone beating his chest over and behind a computer screen. I have no idea what your ancestral lineage is, and I doubt you would tell me. But I would point out to you that many people on this board may have Scandinavian ancestry, so you are mocking them as well.

The irony is that the Vikings did in fact do a lot of raiding and pillaging that there's a good chance you Gabriel, have some Scandinavian DNA in you as well. Your welcome. Have you sequenced your DNA, as I have? I doubt you will tell me. If you do have any Scandinavian DNA in you, which you probably do, maybe a very low percentage I would guess since you are so ready to mock Scandinavians, then perhaps you would be condemning your own ancestry. Who knows?

At this point, if you keep asking the same question over and over again I'm going to find that rather immature. Asked and answered Gabriel. At this point I'm not going to answer your same question I already answered repeatedly.

I don't like your attitude, Gabriel. It makes no sense to me. I consider it irrational. I have not directed anything at you personally and have just been reacting to your attempted personal attacks. This board was not a personal letter to you. I never once brought up people with Down Syndrome. I'm actually confused by your behavior.

During my brief stint as a substitute teacher, I did for a brief time after college, I would sometimes refer to the classroom rules whenever a student was acting unruly and irrational. And if need be I would send the student to the office. So may I remind you:

RULES FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FORUM AND THE SPIRIT PARADISE FORUM:
...
No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed. This includes personal attacks against a person's family members.

You seem to be mocking my Scandinavian ancestry. Should I consider that a personal attack against my family members?

Again, asked and answered Gabriel. You're continuing on is a distraction to what I want which is a philosophical discussion. I have answered your question repeatedly. Why are you continuing to basically kind of harass me (like a flea you can't scratch off)? May I remind you of

"Rule 9: Do not make ... another member to feel harassed ..."

And in case you try to mock me for bringing up "the rules," I would argue that maintaining rules is a masculine exercise. Without order there is chaos. Just spend some time in the military and you will see this. I would also guess that you condemn Joseph Smith for not following societal rules of proper conduct.

So let's move on shall we.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:38 pm

Cultellus wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:07 am

It is, actually. Ron Jeremy is in jail. He is a monster. He recruited and exploited and he will likely die in prison.

Wait, what's this? Off to Wikipedia I go. . .

Just like Joe.

6.6 million bond, and he ain't putting it up.

https://news.yahoo.com/trial-ron-jeremy ... 00113.html

The trial for adult films star Ron Jeremy is slated to begin in February, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Jeremy’s attorney.

Jeremy, 68, has been in jail since June 2020 and has been charged with multiple counts of rape.

During a Tuesday hearing, Jeremy was wheeled into the courtroom appearing before Judge George Lomeli in a prison jumpsuit and with his hands cuffed. He did not speak during the hearing, only responding “yes” when asked if he understood that his trial would start in February.

Following a grand jury indictment on Aug. 25, Jeremy, whose real name is Ronald Jeremy Hyatt, pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of sexual assault, including a dozen counts of rape.

During the hearing, a woman sitting in the courtroom gallery interrupted the proceedings when she stood up and said to the judge that Jeremy’s treatment in jail was “inhumane” and accused his defense attorney of delaying his legal proceedings.

According to Jeremy’s attorney, Stuart Goldfarb, the woman who claimed to be a friend of his client’s for a decade had done the same act in a prior hearing. He did add that Jeremy said that he knows the woman.

“This poor woman, she attacked the district attorney, she attacked me, and last summer in court, she screamed out in court, ‘Ron I love you!’ She’s challenged,” Goldfarb said to USA Today. “The judge is not going to allow her to do that again — she won’t be allowed in court.”

Jeremy is still in jail with a bond set a $6.6 million. He is accused of using his fame to meet and manipulate women who he would go on to sexually assault and rape.

His next hearing is scheduled for Dec. 1.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:19 am

The Book of Mormon is complex? Dexter was a good series? Hmm.

Biologically speaking, polygamy is a losing strategy. As you noted, sexual instincts aren't for monogamy for reasons and that includes female instincts against sticking with the so-called alpha. Evolution favors diversity and a variety of adaptations so that there are greater odds life can carry on when environmental change occurs. Inherent in this idea of fitness is the gory reality of failure of the less fit alternatives.

Social evolution being faster than biological evolution, our success as a species is more significantly tied to the relative success or failure of our memes more so than our genes. In many way, our million-year old primitive genetic instincts are behind the evolutionary curve of our socio-cultural evolution by millennia.

That's why biology isn't ethics. And it's why Smith finding a successful social meme in his highly plastic, reactive 19th century religious claims can't be said to have been following a successful biological strategy when he used his position to gratify his biological sexual urges. The polygamy nearly led to the ruin of Mormonism, and the memes that allowed it to survive into the 20th century clipped those social norms just as a tiger readily catches and kills weaker prey.

Since Joseph's time our society has evolved memes regarding consent, regarding gender identity, gender equality, regarding sex in general that Mormonism struggles with and usually ends up evolving socially to survive.

So, you want to know what morality I judge Smith on? Eusocial human society succeeded over other alternatives due to complex adaptations involving group interactions where the group become the evolutionary successful organism over that of the individual. Larger groups, more complex interactions. Violating trust, behaving as a freeloader who takes more than one gives all trigger biological reactions that have social consequences.

So you and I? We recognized Smith wasn't trustworthy and his social organization lost strength and cohesion because of it. That's eusocial failure. Hear that sound of thousands of modern people finding that social order unfavorable? That's eusocial failure.

You want to smash with lots of people? Look to your own times for understanding the success and failure strategies, what's socially successful compared to socially aberrant behavior. Smith's biological urges were always undermining the success of his religious manipulation as primative instinct easily does in complex social organizations. The deception, though, is what undermines the idea he was modeling successful behavior. It got him lynched. It turned his friends against him. It leads countless individuals today to abandon his (unrecognizable) creation. Deception is a matter of ethics. And it's what he is judged on most, and most correctly.

I'm going to comment on both of your posts here.

You don't think the Book of Mormon is complex for a 23 year old to write? I've read several books on the development of the Book of Mormon, mostly by exMormons, but including one by an LDS author titled, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide by Grant Hardy. I don't see how one can examine the scholarly literature by both Mormons and nonMormons and not see the Book of Mormon as complex.

You don't like Dexter? What! Tell me it isn't so! Just joking. I mean the last few seasons were not as good as the first few, but I think I heard that the lead writer was not involved.

I'm not sure polygamy is an evolutionary failure, but I'd like to hear how that is in more detail, if you have any scientific papers for example I'd very much like to take a look at that. Because as I see it, it would actually aid in evolution as the highest status male with the best replication genes would be seeding the females. And as we both I think I agree it's not a linear anyway, as for example even among gorillas who are kind of polygamous, there is a lot of behind the scenes screwing (cheating) where a female from his harem cheats on the alpha male with other males.

I agree that "primitive genetic instincts are behind the evolutionary curve [of modernity]," but I would argue along with Nietzsche and Freud, that we can't remove our primitive / instinctual / unconscious / Reptilian Brain. We can only find "legal" outlets like violent sports like UFC or using profanity, and have consequences like the police using their aggressive primal instincts at times to keep the masses in line.

I presume you would also use this same "Eusocial human societal morality" you use to judge Smith, to also judge every society, tribe, and civilization that existed prior to this model, correct? Including many of the US Founding Fathers and the initial American ways, correct? You of course would judge Thomas Jefferson just as harshly as you do Joseph Smith, correct? Yet you would also acknowledge the complexity of these situations and appreciate the historical development to present, right?

You would also acknowledge I think that evolution, whether organically or sociologically, happens through adaptation, building upon prior forms, so the current form/state cannot be separated from the prior form/state, correct? If it is all interconnected (past and prsent) and we are not making metaphysical judgments (of good/holy or evil/unholy), then everything is interdependent / tied together ("as one eternal round," sorry I couldn't resist), and Joseph Smith is just a transitional fossil (a memetic vector), a product of that transition from agrarian society to industrial society to the "eusocial model" you talk about.

Could it be that you are judging Smith from the later industrial societal development. Remember Joseph Smith grew up as a farm boy. He grew up in a time when you could be tarred and feathered. When you could be lynched. It was the Wild Wild West in many ways.

I'm sure you were using the eusocial model as a metaphor. But keep in mind:

eusocial species, any colonial animal species that lives in multigenerational family groups in which the vast majority of individuals cooperate to aid relatively few (or even a single) reproductive group members. Eusocial species often exhibit extreme task specialization, which makes colonies potentially very efficient in gathering resources. Workers in eusocial colonies are thought to forgo reproduction due to constraints on independent breeding. Such constraints include shortages of food, territories, protection, skill, nest sites, appropriate weather for breeding, and available mates. Workers may never reproduce during their entire lives; however, they gain exclusive fitness benefits by aiding the reproduction of a queen, who is typically their mother. Such assistance often takes the form of foraging for food, caring for the young, and maintaining and protecting the nest

.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/eusocial-species

Based on that definition wouldn't Joseph Smith be somewhat considered the Queen by anology? But again I'm sure you meant it as a metaphor.

Joseph Smith failed and died, yes; but I don't think his memeplex died which survives in his scriptures and organizational structure. I think he wanted his life and his history recorded partly because he was an arrogant bastard, but also because I think he knew that his legacy would live on for many generations, which it has. You can't say that because he failed and died he totally failed: because every member of a species fails and dies in one way or another and it is their genes that live on. In Joseph Smith's case his humanistic Christian memes have lived on. Most people on this board have not gone back to another form of Christianity because they have been influenced by Joseph Smith's memes. Most of us growing up with a form of Universalism as LDS for example are not about to go and adopt a belief system where it's believed that a deity would burn and tortured someone forever for Thought crimes. I think Joseph Smith's memplex / memetic structure is alive and well and propagating mind-to-mind, whether we like it or not. In fact, I think that most nonMormons (putting aside the recent social issues of today's current times), when hearing the LDS version of the gospel (without bias), would find it to make much more sense than Protestantism and Catholicism. For example, a god with parts and passions, a Father and Son as separate and distinct beings, and a male and female deity rather than a single dad and celibate son and all male angels. These memes are quite contagious and will continue to propagate I think. That I think is a success. I don't think any objective sociobiologist of religion would deny this.

I find Joseph Smith fascinating because I think that he did have eusocial/socialistic instincts in his Dream of Zion. Just Google "Mormonism and social democracy and socialism." If you do that you will see all kinds of interesting links, including a link to an article titled: The case for Book of Mormon socialism By Troy Williams. Give it a read I think it might change your mind, along with the other scholarship on the subject.

The Book of Mormon is replete with eusocial/egalitarian tendencies such as "esteem your brother as yourself," which Joseph repeats in the Doctrine and Covenants. Yet as Jonathan Haidt would put it, he was also very much in tune with his ape body along with his hive brain.

I have not done an in-depth study of how much polygamy aided in the success of early Mormonism. I do think that the Mormon church is one of those religions that had an extremely fast explosion rate of conversion, but I could be mistaken on that. I do think that LDS polygamy was a successful memeplex method because it insulated the Mormons and made them a "peculiar people" and the increase in persecution from Outsiders enhanced internal cohesion; as their shared suffering from Outsiders further bonded them together through their shared suffering.

Keep in mind as well that part of what led to the success of Christianity is that the apostle Paul presented Gentiles as a Living Sacrifice upon the metaphorical altar, as they were to die to Self: which was what baptism represented, a metaphysically dying to their flesh-body and "arising anew" out of the water to be literally possessed by the Christ Spirit and receiving a pneumatic body. So that they were freed from the obligations of the Mosaic Law which was for living flesh-bodies. In their dying, their sensual-bodies (with with their urges and passions) were thought to be diminished as long as they tapped into the Living/Animating Christ inside them. Their mission became not wealth, retirement planning, and social economic status and sexual joy -- although that was permitted only in marriage if you couldn't control yourself -- but instead the aim was being a vector in spreading the memetic "good news," with the expectation of your martyrdom. Aas Paul sums it up succinctly, to die is gain. This desire to die to fully unleash the pneumatic body from the flesh body, generated an Insider Psychology of welcoming martyrdom and actually wanting to be bullied and persecuted and suffer in imitation of the Suffering Messiah. The mindset excluded those who are not willing to seek suffer for Paul's memeplex and be martyrded. Paul Middleton points out that this generated a strong insider community and in fact the synoptic gospels (especially Mark) can be seen as loyalty tracts encouraging people to not be cowards and seek a long life of wealth and leisure into retirement but instead to seek death with statements like "take up your cross." Thus their biological failures by seeking death actually propagated the memeplex.

Likewise, Smith presented the practice of polygamy similarly as an Abrahamic test upon the altar. Those who are willing to accept the practice felt a strong insider identity of sacrificing moral norms for the bliss of future exaltation. That kind of insider commitment and camaraderie, especially combined with secret temple rituals which solidified that cohesion, in the shared vision of building an egalitarian Zion, I think led in part to the expanding success of early Mormonism; while other new religious movements died out and became extinct.

Yes some of his behavior got him lynched, but again his death in no way ended the replication of his memetic structure. I'm not comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr, but the death of Martin Luther King did not end the "I Have a Dream speech" as a memetic structure. It also does not matter that Joseph Smith was engaged in deception any more than on atheism our courts are engaged in a game of deception by acting as if people have free will and a soul. Joseph Smith's ultimate goal was egalitarian and to be connected to his people. He justifyed his deception with an appeal to the higher good of converting them to Christ, at first, and later I think he was more motivated by humanistic motivations and providing existential meaning for others.

I think you are also simplifying things by merely pointing out Joseph Smith sexual desires and leaving out the other complex motivations driving his behavior. Like the crucifixion of Christ, Smith's "crucifixion" if you will (note the recent book title American Crucifixion) further bonded his followers together around a shared tragedy and led to further devotion in his followers. I presume you grew up Mormon like I did and know that there is great power in the "martyr" for generating devotion. Joseph Smith's martyrdom generated great devotion and more commitment with hymns like Praise to the Man and D&C 135 oozes enthusiastic devotion caused by his martyrdom. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

Smith's "deception" could have in fact been what made his religion grow into the state it is today. If he had remained more Protestant (as he did prior to 1835), his sect would have probably remained small and maybe even fizzled out as just another sect and not much different from the other Protestant churches. By expanding his deception, from The Book of Mormon (presenting a modified Protestant Trinity with the twist of the American Indians as Jews), to then declaring the Book of Abraham as scripture with the concept that the human soul is eternal and there are Gods and the purpose of life is to imitate the sexual Gods and not grovel before the asexual Protestant god without parts and passions; he in fact gave his movement a distinction and something that separates it from the competition. Like a successful widget, if you stand apart from the competition and offer something more unique, you help in its success. Mormonism did that in spades by combining strains of humanistic scientific naturalism with theology, inventing an embodied god with sexual parts with the goal of not being pious and monastic but being sexual through polygamy.

This, combined with his scriptures on caring for the poor and egalitarian ideals, combined as a great selling point for both men and women. When people took hold of the idea that God was more relatable having a physical body and that their body was not something to discard as soon as possible (per Paul), and that marriage love extended into the eternities, the deception and manipulations became tied up with the success of the memes that gave way to a romanticization of sexual love and an ecclesiastical form of polyamory.

As for your second post,
Sure Cowdery and others may have helped him organize his thoughts, I have no doubt about that, but you don't give credit to Smith for all the passages sprinkled throughout all Mormon scripture? And remember that when Cowdery attempted to produce words for The Book of Mormon through his rod he wasn't successful. I agree with Dan Vogel and others that Joseph Smith was the sole author of The Book of Mormon.

And you brought up the law of consecration, why was Joseph Smith motivated to do that? I have not done an indepth study of why it failed but I think that he wanted it to succeed at one point. So he did have egalitarian leanings. I don't think it's controversial to say that.

I can't help but feel there is a negative filter of only wanting to see Joseph Smith in one light, as a scoundrel and not in anyway present him as a complex individual and presenting him as not saying or doing or wanting to do anything good.

I think the Smith as pure evil and Smith as a perfect saint are both exaggerated extremes.

Free Ranger wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:40 pm

Gabriel wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:44 am

I didn't answer your questions because you chose not to answer mine. You use the term "in tune with nature" in a manner that admits of exclusion. I have no problems with that, but I do not understand exactly what you mean by being "in tune with nature". You were the one who introduced that term in the title of this forum. By your own admission, you are a tall, muscular, intelligent man and you certainly are not loath to share your opinions on a multitude of subjects. Therefore, I thought it apropos to ask a simple question to see whether or not, in your opinion, there is some kind of demark that separates one who is "in tune with nature" from another who is not.

I asked you whether or not a child with down syndrome is "in tune with nature". I wasn't asking for a dogmatic answer. But surely you have an opinion. Surely with all that Viking blood in you, you should be able to muster up the courage to share your plain and precious opinion. But, I will tell you what, to make it easier for you, I will phrase this as a multiple-choice question:

By your OWN definition of what it means to be in tune with nature, is a child with down syndrome in tune with nature?

1) Yes, a child with down syndrome is in tune with nature.
2) No, a child with down syndrome is not in tune with nature.
3) I don't know whether or not a child with down syndrome is in tune with nature.

Hiding behind a majority of biological scientists who study what you are talking about isn't going to cut it, Sunny Jim. Remember, you are a Viking. Your mighty forbears did not waste their time writing extravagant "Happiness Letters" to the villagers before they raped and pillaged. But, if you would rather go the scholarly route, that's fine. Although, I am sure that you have dozens of sources at your fingertips, I think that it would be nice if you can provide one quote from any reputable biological scientist who writes of down syndrome in terms of being "in (or out of) tune with nature." Just one. A single quote. A wafer-thin quote. That's all.

I read what you wrote a couple of times and each time it made me giggle. I see what you're trying to do. It reminds me of the time after college I tried substitute teaching for a brief stint; high school students love to goad the teacher into such ongoing interactions by asking the kind of questions you ask.

Gabriel, buddy, you seem to be taking this way too personal. It is just philosophizing on a computer screen. I have no idea why you are taking this so personally when I have not made it personal with you. But you are trying very hard to make it personal toward me. Again why the anger and hostility? If you won't answer that question then I probably will stop responding to you.

If you attempt to goad me further by referencing my Viking ancestry again, and my stature, implying "I'm not man enough to engage you further," or something like that (as you've already attempted); I would simply reply I have no interest in beating my chest against a computer screen. In a digital format true machismo, if that is what your after, will come across through intellectual discussion. That is going to be how I express my masculinity not a never-ending tit-for-tat of words which I would find childish on my part to engage in further.

I would much rather go out and "flex my muscles" in the weight room or the boxing ring or making money for my family. This is a recreational activity for me. I owe you nothing Gabrieal, not a single more ounce of my time if I don't feel like it. I engaged this public forum to possibly change my mind and stimulate thought for further reflection on my part. I'm not interested in acting macho with you like two rams butting heads, it's not making me money and not stimulating thought.

I find it interesting that you seem to be trying to poke holes in my contention that nature produces people like Joseph Smith, and so on atheism he was just a product of nature. In the process, in this thread I argued that Alpha Males are products of nature. I suspect you have a problem with saying Joseph Smith's "alphaness" was a product of nature. I would guess that you personally condemn such Alpha Behavior. Yet your responses toward me display alpha male aggressive traits. You seem to be wanting to to use verbal power plays to get the upper hand: using sarcasm, snarkiness and indirect insults. If you had come at it from a more polite and "Christian" (i.e. civil) demeanor, then your seeming concern for people with down syndrome would make more sense. To be clear, I never said anything about down syndrome. The fact that your own nature is driving you toward anger and hostility and attempting to one-up me is making my argument for me. What if I was autistic? If I was, would your behavior be appropriate?

Again you are taking things way too personal in your responses. I'm simply having a philosophical discussion. The theme of which is how can we as atheists and agnostics have moral outrage and moral indignation against Smith when he is a product of Nature; and your own behavior toward me Gabriel is a product of nature. How can you condemn Joseph Smith when you are revealing similar characteristic traits?

You also bring up the history of Vikings and pillaging. Are you aware that many Caucasian people today are the product of Viking raids and sex with Vikings?

I seem to have really got under your skin by asking you to live up to your own apparent claims that you are superior in knowledge to me on the subject, so you tell me the answer to your own question.

On Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:42 pm, I already answered your question:

In tune with a man's nature to be more specific I guess, without social constructs and Puritanical morality. In other words, according to the science I have read men's biology instilled in men natural drives toward seeking territory, rank and power; which increases the man's prospects for spreading his seed. The same could be said of our ape relatives. Or, and I'm just asking, are you someone who denies evolution and that we are apes? Just want to understand where you are coming from.

How do you think the majority of biological scientists who study what I'm talking about would respond to your question about down syndrome?

Then on Sunday, Octb31, I followed up your refusal to answer my question by saying:

You did not answer the questions that I asked you. You then stated, "I doubt that the majority of biological scientists use the fuzzy, unscientific term 'in tune with nature ..." From that sparky comment, I presume that you think you have superior knowledge about what scientists would say about this subject. So I ask again, "How do you think the majority of biological scientists who study what I'm talking about would respond to your question about down syndrome?"

You have not answered my questions Gabriel; and in fact you have turned around and made my overall argument for me. You are seeking territory, rank and power. We are engaged in a stand-off, you asked me an irrelevant question (in my view) and I gave you a response. Asked and answered, Gabriel.

At this point I predict you're going to up the ante and make more snarky comments and attempt to insult me further. Your ego is clearly involved, and you're angry and hostile for no good reason. I have had the courage to express my thoughts and even divulge personal information and backed up my thoughts with arguments; you seem to be the one who is hiding. Hiding behind your anger and not answering my questions. I don't know anything about you.

Again, you are making my arguments for me. You won't answer my questions because I think you want to feel superior in knowledge, just like Joseph Smith sought to do (as we see in the King Follett Discourse as he tries to one-up the scholars of his day by claiming a superior knowledge of Hebrew).

Are you are afraid to answer your own question because it might reveal you are not superior in knowledge? Again, your communication in this thread makes my arguments for me to a large degree.

I'm going to presume you are an atheist, as that was the audience I was primarily addressing in the start of this thread. I pointed out that, on atheism it is difficult to have moral outrage against Joseph Smith as a product of nature.

You seem to make moral judgements against Joseph Smith for having alpha male traits and yet you yourself are exhibiting similar alpha male traits: being aggressive, one upping me, insulting me, goading me, and manipulating me into further interaction. While I have done nothing to instigate this and have said nothing to you personally. Are you aware of this behavior of yours?

I would venture to say that you would argue that Joseph Smith was a big jerk who was aggressive and manipulative with people, and insulted people, etc., and that was wrong, right Gabriel? Do you get where I'm going with this? You're acting like the person I presume you have condemned with moral outrage, while you yourself (with your own nature) are acting similar?

For example, you bring up the Happiness Letter, mocking my ancestry saying, "Your mighty forbears did not waste their time writing extravagant 'Happiness Letters' ..." In the Happiness Letter, Joseph Smith is being an aggressive male seeking sex and trying to goad Nancy into the response he wants, and manipulates her in his writings. And your behavior is likewise an aggressive male seeking superiority over another male and trying to goad him into a response and using manipulative tactics to do so. Yet, you probably have great moral indignation against Joseph Smith when he displayed the same or a similar nature and behavior as you are displaying?

Can you see the irony in that?

You seem to delight in mocking my Viking ancestry and my physical stature while verbally coming off someone beating his chest over and behind a computer screen. I have no idea what your ancestral lineage is, and I doubt you would tell me. But I would point out to you that many people on this board may have Scandinavian ancestry, so you are mocking them as well.

The irony is that the Vikings did in fact do a lot of raiding and pillaging that there's a good chance you Gabriel, have some Scandinavian DNA in you as well. Your welcome. Have you sequenced your DNA, as I have? I doubt you will tell me. If you do have any Scandinavian DNA in you, which you probably do, maybe a very low percentage I would guess since you are so ready to mock Scandinavians, then perhaps you would be condemning your own ancestry. Who knows?

At this point, if you keep asking the same question over and over again I'm going to find that rather immature. Asked and answered Gabriel. At this point I'm not going to answer your same question I already answered repeatedly.

I don't like your attitude, Gabriel. It makes no sense to me. I consider it irrational. I have not directed anything at you personally and have just been reacting to your attempted personal attacks. This board was not a personal letter to you. I never once brought up people with Down Syndrome. I'm actually confused by your behavior.

During my brief stint as a substitute teacher, I did for a brief time after college, I would sometimes refer to the classroom rules whenever a student was acting unruly and irrational. And if need be I would send the student to the office. So may I remind you:

RULES FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FORUM AND THE SPIRIT PARADISE FORUM:
...
No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed. This includes personal attacks against a person's family members.

You seem to be mocking my Scandinavian ancestry. Should I consider that a personal attack against my family members?

Again, asked and answered Gabriel. You're continuing on is a distraction to what I want which is a philosophical discussion. I have answered your question repeatedly. Why are you continuing to basically kind of harass me (like a flea you can't scratch off)? May I remind you of

"Rule 9: Do not make ... another member to feel harassed ..."

And in case you try to mock me for bringing up "the rules," I would argue that maintaining rules is a masculine exercise. Without order there is chaos. Just spend some time in the military and you will see this. I would also guess that you condemn Joseph Smith for not following societal rules of proper conduct.

So let's move on shall we.

You sure are one long-winded Viking.

Let me see if I can condense your thesis in this forum (and correct me if I'm wrong). It seems that you are arguing that from a purely naturalistic, atheist worldview, one cannot condemn Joseph Smith; however one is perfectly free to admire him.

Short answers.

Polygyny is a genetic trap where more of the population ends up with similar genes compared to populations with diverse sexual partnering. Evolution favors diversity. Lack of diversity results in lower probabilities of having at least some individuals survive environmental changes that pressure the population. Polyamory is more successful genetically but fraught socially.

Grant Hardy: Claimed the Book of Mormon contains greater complexity than the didactic reputation it's earned, and went on to show this by using literary close reading techniques like a Cracked.com article on why the Jedi are the actual villains of Star Wars. He asserts Nephi was a tragic figure who foresaw the destruction of his people which flavored his writings while ignoring the fact 1 and 2 Nephi were written after Moroni, for example. His book was, in a word, garbage. Three words? Literary hand waving.

I am not using eusocial metaphorically. Humans are eusocial. You've mentioned Jonathan Haidt. I suggest checking out E. O. Wilson.

Biology vs social evolution: If you like Haidt he has produced much on the subject. Biology isn't ethics. It does inform our moral approaches but not towards an obvious ethical end.

On the origins of the Book of Mormon: Smith fumbled an attempt to produce a book prior to the arrival of Cowdery. Were Smith the sole author of the Book of Mormon, he would have produced it in the year before with Harris as scribe rather than in the three months after Cowdery's arrival.

Finally: Dexter had one good season (the first), one excellent season (with Jonathan Lithgow) and the rest bordering between ok to down right awful. By the end it was a dumpster fire of a series with the worst series finale ever. Not debatable.