Is being a "Mormon" as a Man (and Married LDS), Better in the Midst of Wokeism & Secular Culture?

[canpakes]

canpakes,

I open mindedly listened to your counter and absorbed it. I simply have to agree to disagree about the movies' analysis.

That’s fine.

It’s a fun angle to examine, though, so - setting aside your own very real journey through faith and identity, to examine the evolution of imaginary superheroes for just a moment more - I’d add that I do feel that Baggage Claim’s (the video’s creator, hereafter abbreviated BC) case is very selective. With regard to ‘earning’ one’s position, BC ignores major characters like Superman (is simply ‘super’ because Earths’s gravity is different than that of his home planet), and Thor (is a god by birthright), complex background histories that combine effort with innate abilities like those of the X-Men, and even forgets about Captain America’s abilities granted by serum injection, when trying to use the latter as an example of a character that has ‘earned his place’.

Finally, BC - repeatedly using the Captain Marvel character as a highlighted example of supposed wokeism - fails to inform the audience that there are nearly a dozen renditions of this character in comics history, with the accurately-represented Carol Danvers version here having been introduced in 1968. So much for trying to paint that 54-year old example as recent ‘wokeism’ within a newly-manipulated backstory.

From one of your responses to another poster:

“I guess this is what annoys me most about many of the woke feminists making cinema, is their narcissistic entitlement in not caring what the fans actually want.”

As mentioned before, maybe this is exactly what fans of the Carol Danvers character wanted, and that you’re just not part of that audience. You are annoyed; those other fans are entertained. But capitalism is just doing its thing.

But, moving on now to real people …

To answer your question, the benefit I'm seeking is existential meaning and tribal belonging and feeling good overall.

OK. Those needs can apparently be met by a broad spectrum of groups and/or religious flavors.

You said, "Protection or shielding through numbers for your sense of self…" Can you see how that language you're using comes off as talking down to somebody…

If you choose that attitude, then I can’t stop you from doing so. But my statement is true and correct as regards why many, many people prefer associating within groups that they perceive as possessing similar values or beliefs. You’ve asserted as much when you talk about ‘tribe’, so your assertion about attitude would also have to apply to your own position, would it not?

… and you trying to prop yourself up as superior?

Acknowledging or repeating a truth does not prop one up as superior. Sensible, maybe.

Are you not yourself, on some level, protecting or shielding through numbers for your own sense of self?

At the moment, I live in a community surrounded by folks who attend a church that I do not. Nor do I attend any other church. My SO and I are pretty agnostic yet make no attempt to seek out folks who share our religious view. So the answer to your question is, “probably not”, at least as regards faith.

Or would you claim that you form your identity in a vacuum?

Vacuum and Tribe are not the only two possible environments affecting identity, correct? They would only seem to be the two extremes.

If you're going to tell me your identity has not been affected by social factors, that your sense of self has nothing to do with any group, I'm going to call billshit and in all due respect say you are deceiving yourself.

No need to call ‘billshit’, as every person’s identity is shaped by their experiences and environment. What would be ‘billshit’ would be to assume that tribe-seeking or mimic-membership is necessary to build identity.

Even if you just consider yourself an American and a have particular wardrobe in your closet, that's an example of protection or shielding through numbers for your sense of self.

Or against weather. : )

I read your words carefully and you did not offer me a better alternative. Do you have one? I'm asking sincerely.

Sure, I do. Or I don’t. How can that question be answered by anyone other than yourself? To repeatedly ask it would seem to hint more at a need for validation (which aligns with tribe and the point I made in my previous post) rather than a genuine interest in diving into any proposed alternative.

You seem happy. You’re telling me that you are, anyway. Why would you need to ask if there’s a happier alternative?

You said about choosing to not be Mormon and why, "That would be fidelity to perceived truth, and an unwillingness to have to repeat to others perceived untruths, or to have to indoctrinate one’s family with those untruths, in order to satisfy a purity test that then defines your ‘acceptance’ to your community." That is a fair point and I totally understand where you're coming from. It does make me think. But if we're going to be committed to the fidelity of perceived truth based on science then I would ask you/or myself if we should accept the truths that we have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that sustains our American governmental system and courts of law? If you said to me based on an atheistic empirical point of view, "That would not be fidelity to perceived truth [as we have no inalienable Rights, that's a religious/metaphysical claim], and an I have an unwillingness to have to repeat to others perceived untruths [like there is a Creator and courts of law I have the moral right to objectively determine the guilt or innocent of a person as if they have a soul and are not biologically determined], or to have to indoctrinate my family with these untruths [like my children pledging allegiance to the flag], in order to satisfy a purity test [American citizenship] that then defines my ‘acceptance’ in my [American] community." Do you see what I'm getting at?

Perhaps. You are wanting to link acceptance of citizenship under the Constitution to an implied acceptance of a Creator. There are some problems with this proposition, but atm I’d only ask you to focus on the fact that the Constitution does not define what a Creator is. As such, this wording doesn’t dismantle my own proposition about what some may consider ‘truth’ - and their fidelity towards it - versus what you choose to accept as ‘truth’.

There are a whole bunch of supernatural beliefs that go into making "Americanism" function. When you start questioning those metaphysical assumptions sustaining "Americanism," you no longer have civility and a functioning democracy.

I think that you’re hinting at the idea that people can’t act civilized or implement law or abide by defined moral standards unless they believe in (a particular) god. It’s an old argument and not a convincing one.

In the recent debate with RFM, Cardin Ellis made a really good point about the deceptions and errors in American history and yet exMormons are not going to the American embassy to renounce their citizenship. John Dehlin made the same point when he was a New Order Mormon. RFM just gave a clever evasive debate maneuver by declaring, "America is the greatest country in the world!" To which he received great applause from the audience, including presumably ex-Mormons. So what RFM did was strategically deflect from the points Ellis was making by appealing to one's religious sensibilities as an American and part of the American tribe. The emotionality and tribal solidarity he generated in that move was no different than a Mormon saying that their church is one of the best religions in the world.

To your last sentence: no, it might not be different. To each his or her own, right? Though, those are statements of belief, but not necessarily fact-based truths. Saying that you believe that “(your) church is one of the best religions in the world” is not the same as saying that It’s a fact that Joseph Smith met God, or speaks for God, and that God doesn’t want you to drink coffee but is down with taking multiple wives (as examples at two extremes).

Do you think that the people in the audience had actually analyzed whether or not it is true that America is the greatest country, or did they get caught up in the emotional tribalism of the moment? And why don't all the exMormons go to the embassy and renounce their citizenship based on what Ellis pointed out? When the untruths, deceptions, and errors in American history and the errors of its leaders are way worse than anything in Mormonism, as Ellis touched upon. I don't know about you but I'm not going to renounce my citizenship and I consider myself part of the American tribe.

No. Why would you? Although, you might believe that “untruths, deceptions, and errors in American history” could be addressed head on so as to not repeat them again down the road … as long as, I suppose, that doing so isn’t interpreted as wokeism. ; )

So if someone is not going to apply the same cynical lens (they apply to their former Mormon tribe) when it comes to their American tribalism, aren't they practicing a double standard?

No. Because the United States of America doesn’t require a purity test based on my belief in a literal wording of the Constitution in order to confer citizenship. Nor does the Constitution attempt to state that this nation’s perceived errors were manifestations of (any) God’s will. It isn’t written to claim that slavery - as one example - was demanded by God. Similarly, the process of governance in this country is (arguably) one that is rooted in the participation of its citizens, and not arbitrarily determined by a tiny number of men who claim that their decisions are just rerouted transmissions from a particular deity.

:: stuff about tribes and teams snipped ::

I don’t think that anyone denies the existence of tribes and teams. It’s the very essence of human history and existence.

I noticed that when I keep asking for an alternative you keep dodging that question and saying some people this, some people that, but not giving me a clear example. Are you saying that you disagree with John Dehlin (see link above) and Shawn McCraney that there is no better alternative communal organization than Mormonism?

To the second sentence: I’m not familiar with what either said, or the context that those remarks were made in. I respect their opinion, but I’m not bound to agree with it. And I don’t have reason to.

To your first question: I’ve answered that a few paragraphs above.

I would imagine that a woman would have a totally different way of looking at this.

That’s a fair conclusion.

I could go on and on speculating on why a woman who, like me, as a religious humanist would be interested in the Mormon community.

Sure. But you will do it from the lens of your own experiences and gender.

When I was a kid I was very creative and a cartoonist. I'm also good at poetry. And I'm also good at analytical thinking. I'm a bit like Nietzsche in many ways in that I have the ability to exercise both my left and right brain. So I would say that the disconnect I'm sensing is that I might be more of a philosophical artist than others who might be more philosophically linear and empirical. If you do not have that artistic sensibility then you may not understand where I'm coming from.

No worries. I draw, design and build things for a living.

So what I'm getting at is, after years being linear and deconstructive, I simply switched gears a bit and began being a little more artistic in my being; and appreciating music, drama, and mythos. I began to see that a whole New World opened up to me and that there was a path away from spiraling down through reductionism into nihilism and instead spiraling upward into existential vitality and finding meaning in the theatrical productions of religion. But if you are one whose taste buds are numb to mythos and deaf to the music of the spheres and love is merely a biological transaction, then perhaps what I'm getting it will not resonate with you. I'm doing the best I can to put it into words.

Understood. But as you would describe your ascent into existential vitality and finding meaning in the theatrical productions of religion, others may find some of those productions to be more confining than liberating. You might also feel that way at times given that you’ve stated that you’re not sold on the historical details of J. Smith’s story. I find that interesting, because if the historicity isn’t there, then on what basis is the doctrine - constructed by the same source - valid? And where, then, is your found meaning actually originating from?

I would ask you if the inability to determine the existence of an afterlife - let alone its nature - is a limitation that you imagine folks outside of Mormonism are saddled with. I might similarly ask you why Mormonism posits that my body is a singular husk that serves a purpose largely undefined as anything more than a ‘test’, and that will be discarded upon my death so that I can rise into a spirit realm to … create more spiritual bodies. I would ask why that would be more liberating than considering - outside of Mormonism - that I am a continuously existing and evolving apparent individual being that is also the physical and communal manifestation of an unbroken chain of life since the first molecules necessary for it formed … that I am inextricably linked to virtually all other life given our shared origin … and that after my death, I will continue to exist, in part, within the matter of my own children, and theirs. And, in between my ‘birth’ and ‘death’ - being the composition of billions of years of tumult and the evolving and destructive process of the universe in transition - I will be able to experience some of the majesty and wonder of an unfathomable and limitless expanse of beauty too vast to ever know completely, but that I can also choose to step beyond the mere construction of it to act with kindness and compassion to others through free will, affecting the continuation of life long after I’m gone … if I accept that challenge.

I cannot imagine a greater gift than that opportunity.

Would adopting my mindset be better for you than believing the Mormon narrative? I don’t know. Only you do. But I’m comfortable with my choice, and I suspect as least as much as you are with yours.

[LittleNipper]

Heaven and the afterlife will be a big surprise to those that trust GOD. JESUS didn't make up lies to satisfy our curiosity, nor promote them to become famous.

[Philo Sofee]

Canpakes to Free Ranger
Free Ranger
So if someone is not going to apply the same cynical lens (they apply to their former Mormon tribe) when it comes to their American tribalism, aren't they practicing a double standard?
Canpakes
No. Because the United States of America doesn’t require a purity test based on my belief in a literal wording of the Constitution in order to confer citizenship. Nor does the Constitution attempt to state that this nation’s perceived errors were manifestations of (any) God’s will. It isn’t written to claim that slavery - as one example - was demanded by God. Similarly, the process of governance in this country is (arguably) one that is rooted in the participation of its citizens, and not arbitrarily determined by a tiny number of men who claim that their decisions are just rerouted transmissions from a particular deity.

That is so very well said I am more than happy to repeat it! Thanks Canpakes.

[Free Ranger]

My shoulder injury I mentioned is acting up and computer use and typing for long periods causes issues, so I will be brief.

Thank you Kishkumen and MG 2.0 for your kind words.

To answer someone else's question, no Seven (the movie) was not woke, I never said it was.

To canpakes,

I take your points and I agree completely when you said, "But capitalism is just doing its thing." Great point.

Regarding the rest of your input we actually think a lot alike, the way you think which I would describe as Vulcan Mysticism is exactly how I thought just five years ago. By Vulcan I'm referring to the logical thinking and rationality of Spock in Star Trek. But Spock lacked the mystical element. So by mysticism I'm referring to agnostic mystics like Neil deGrasse Tyson. I was a proud Vulcan Mystic for 15 years. My current phase, if you want to call it that, is what it is.

Regarding tribes, being an American culturally and speaking English itself is as you put it, "tribe-seeking or mimic-membership … to build identity." Just compare how you think and act now, the behaviors you mimic, the social trends, the catch phrases, even down to mannerisms, compared to how people thought and acted in the 70s, or 50s, 1800, or 5000 BC. We are all, whether we want to admit it or not, mimicking and tribe-seeking on some level. Respectfully, to deny that, I think is to deny a huge body of scientific research and philosophical input on the topic.

Hopefully this doesn't sound annoying, cuz it would have been to hear it myself five years ago, but you are talking in many ways with Christian metaphysical assumptions. You talk as if you are an individual "I" (as if a soul) and have free will and other ways of thinking that you inherited from the Christian tradition within the culture in which you swim like a fish in a bowl of water.

And regarding Americanism, you seem to be overlooking my overall point that it is based in supernatural presuppositions. I've already made my case so I won't repeat myself and want to be brief. This is not meant to sound condescending but I suggest you really sit down and read Nietzsche (and then study the Nazis and how they rejected the supernatural presuppositions of what I call Americanism), to see that Americanism is in fact based on supernatural presuppositions like human rights, and the ability for courts of law to judge guilt or innocence as if people have a soul, and that when you question the supernatural presuppositions in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, that clearly imply we have a soul, and you look at what Nietzsche says about this and how the Nazis built upon Nietzscheanism and others, I think you will see what I'm talking about. That's a tall order I know. I would get annoyed if someone told me to do such a thing. But I just happened to have done it myself so it's difficult to put into words what I experienced doing so. Especially when I want to be brief.

As to deriving meaning in religion as a "religious humanist," it is a complex thing that would require several paragraphs to explain.

Regarding your expression of what, if I may would call, agnostic mysticism, I really appreciate that and you express it very artistically and I value that perspective; and it was my worldview just five years ago. But I would question your claim to free will within scientific naturalism. Again, I recently read through all of Nietzsche's major works and it really had a profound change on my way of thinking about such things. I would have been agreeing with you on everything you said If that had not happened.

In the end, I respect your narrative and if it works for you, that is awesome.

[Free Ranger]

canpakes,

I open mindedly listened to your counter and absorbed it. I simply have to agree to disagree about the movies' analysis.

That’s fine.

It’s a fun angle to examine, though, so - setting aside your own very real journey through faith and identity, to examine the evolution of imaginary superheroes for just a moment more - I’d add that I do feel that Baggage Claim’s (the video’s creator, hereafter abbreviated BC) case is very selective. With regard to ‘earning’ one’s position, BC ignores major characters like Superman (is simply ‘super’ because Earths’s gravity is different than that of his home planet), and Thor (is a god by birthright), complex background histories that combine effort with innate abilities like those of the X-Men, and even forgets about Captain America’s abilities granted by serum injection, when trying to use the latter as an example of a character that has ‘earned his place’.

Finally, BC - repeatedly using the Captain Marvel character as a highlighted example of supposed wokeism - fails to inform the audience that there are nearly a dozen renditions of this character in comics history, with the accurately-represented Carol Danvers version here having been introduced in 1968. So much for trying to paint that 54-year old example as recent ‘wokeism’ within a newly-manipulated backstory.

From one of your responses to another poster:

“I guess this is what annoys me most about many of the woke feminists making cinema, is their narcissistic entitlement in not caring what the fans actually want.”

As mentioned before, maybe this is exactly what fans of the Carol Danvers character wanted, and that you’re just not part of that audience. You are annoyed; those other fans are entertained. But capitalism is just doing its thing.

But, moving on now to real people …

To answer your question, the benefit I'm seeking is existential meaning and tribal belonging and feeling good overall.

OK. Those needs can apparently be met by a broad spectrum of groups and/or religious flavors.

You said, "Protection or shielding through numbers for your sense of self…" Can you see how that language you're using comes off as talking down to somebody…

If you choose that attitude, then I can’t stop you from doing so. But my statement is true and correct as regards why many, many people prefer associating within groups that they perceive as possessing similar values or beliefs. You’ve asserted as much when you talk about ‘tribe’, so your assertion about attitude would also have to apply to your own position, would it not?

… and you trying to prop yourself up as superior?

Acknowledging or repeating a truth does not prop one up as superior. Sensible, maybe.

Are you not yourself, on some level, protecting or shielding through numbers for your own sense of self?

At the moment, I live in a community surrounded by folks who attend a church that I do not. Nor do I attend any other church. My SO and I are pretty agnostic yet make no attempt to seek out folks who share our religious view. So the answer to your question is, “probably not”, at least as regards faith.

Or would you claim that you form your identity in a vacuum?

Vacuum and Tribe are not the only two possible environments affecting identity, correct? They would only seem to be the two extremes.

If you're going to tell me your identity has not been affected by social factors, that your sense of self has nothing to do with any group, I'm going to call billshit and in all due respect say you are deceiving yourself.

No need to call ‘billshit’, as every person’s identity is shaped by their experiences and environment. What would be ‘billshit’ would be to assume that tribe-seeking or mimic-membership is necessary to build identity.

Even if you just consider yourself an American and a have particular wardrobe in your closet, that's an example of protection or shielding through numbers for your sense of self.

Or against weather. : )

I read your words carefully and you did not offer me a better alternative. Do you have one? I'm asking sincerely.

Sure, I do. Or I don’t. How can that question be answered by anyone other than yourself? To repeatedly ask it would seem to hint more at a need for validation (which aligns with tribe and the point I made in my previous post) rather than a genuine interest in diving into any proposed alternative.

You seem happy. You’re telling me that you are, anyway. Why would you need to ask if there’s a happier alternative?

You said about choosing to not be Mormon and why, "That would be fidelity to perceived truth, and an unwillingness to have to repeat to others perceived untruths, or to have to indoctrinate one’s family with those untruths, in order to satisfy a purity test that then defines your ‘acceptance’ to your community." That is a fair point and I totally understand where you're coming from. It does make me think. But if we're going to be committed to the fidelity of perceived truth based on science then I would ask you/or myself if we should accept the truths that we have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that sustains our American governmental system and courts of law? If you said to me based on an atheistic empirical point of view, "That would not be fidelity to perceived truth [as we have no inalienable Rights, that's a religious/metaphysical claim], and an I have an unwillingness to have to repeat to others perceived untruths [like there is a Creator and courts of law I have the moral right to objectively determine the guilt or innocent of a person as if they have a soul and are not biologically determined], or to have to indoctrinate my family with these untruths [like my children pledging allegiance to the flag], in order to satisfy a purity test [American citizenship] that then defines my ‘acceptance’ in my [American] community." Do you see what I'm getting at?

Perhaps. You are wanting to link acceptance of citizenship under the Constitution to an implied acceptance of a Creator. There are some problems with this proposition, but atm I’d only ask you to focus on the fact that the Constitution does not define what a Creator is. As such, this wording doesn’t dismantle my own proposition about what some may consider ‘truth’ - and their fidelity towards it - versus what you choose to accept as ‘truth’.

There are a whole bunch of supernatural beliefs that go into making "Americanism" function. When you start questioning those metaphysical assumptions sustaining "Americanism," you no longer have civility and a functioning democracy.

I think that you’re hinting at the idea that people can’t act civilized or implement law or abide by defined moral standards unless they believe in (a particular) god. It’s an old argument and not a convincing one.

In the recent debate with RFM, Cardin Ellis made a really good point about the deceptions and errors in American history and yet exMormons are not going to the American embassy to renounce their citizenship. John Dehlin made the same point when he was a New Order Mormon. RFM just gave a clever evasive debate maneuver by declaring, "America is the greatest country in the world!" To which he received great applause from the audience, including presumably ex-Mormons. So what RFM did was strategically deflect from the points Ellis was making by appealing to one's religious sensibilities as an American and part of the American tribe. The emotionality and tribal solidarity he generated in that move was no different than a Mormon saying that their church is one of the best religions in the world.

To your last sentence: no, it might not be different. To each his or her own, right? Though, those are statements of belief, but not necessarily fact-based truths. Saying that you believe that “(your) church is one of the best religions in the world” is not the same as saying that It’s a fact that Joseph Smith met God, or speaks for God, and that God doesn’t want you to drink coffee but is down with taking multiple wives (as examples at two extremes).

Do you think that the people in the audience had actually analyzed whether or not it is true that America is the greatest country, or did they get caught up in the emotional tribalism of the moment? And why don't all the exMormons go to the embassy and renounce their citizenship based on what Ellis pointed out? When the untruths, deceptions, and errors in American history and the errors of its leaders are way worse than anything in Mormonism, as Ellis touched upon. I don't know about you but I'm not going to renounce my citizenship and I consider myself part of the American tribe.

No. Why would you? Although, you might believe that “untruths, deceptions, and errors in American history” could be addressed head on so as to not repeat them again down the road … as long as, I suppose, that doing so isn’t interpreted as wokeism. ; )

So if someone is not going to apply the same cynical lens (they apply to their former Mormon tribe) when it comes to their American tribalism, aren't they practicing a double standard?

No. Because the United States of America doesn’t require a purity test based on my belief in a literal wording of the Constitution in order to confer citizenship. Nor does the Constitution attempt to state that this nation’s perceived errors were manifestations of (any) God’s will. It isn’t written to claim that slavery - as one example - was demanded by God. Similarly, the process of governance in this country is (arguably) one that is rooted in the participation of its citizens, and not arbitrarily determined by a tiny number of men who claim that their decisions are just rerouted transmissions from a particular deity.

:: stuff about tribes and teams snipped ::

I don’t think that anyone denies the existence of tribes and teams. It’s the very essence of human history and existence.

I noticed that when I keep asking for an alternative you keep dodging that question and saying some people this, some people that, but not giving me a clear example. Are you saying that you disagree with John Dehlin (see link above) and Shawn McCraney that there is no better alternative communal organization than Mormonism?

To the second sentence: I’m not familiar with what either said, or the context that those remarks were made in. I respect their opinion, but I’m not bound to agree with it. And I don’t have reason to.

To your first question: I’ve answered that a few paragraphs above.

I would imagine that a woman would have a totally different way of looking at this.

That’s a fair conclusion.

I could go on and on speculating on why a woman who, like me, as a religious humanist would be interested in the Mormon community.

Sure. But you will do it from the lens of your own experiences and gender.

When I was a kid I was very creative and a cartoonist. I'm also good at poetry. And I'm also good at analytical thinking. I'm a bit like Nietzsche in many ways in that I have the ability to exercise both my left and right brain. So I would say that the disconnect I'm sensing is that I might be more of a philosophical artist than others who might be more philosophically linear and empirical. If you do not have that artistic sensibility then you may not understand where I'm coming from.

No worries. I draw, design and build things for a living.

So what I'm getting at is, after years being linear and deconstructive, I simply switched gears a bit and began being a little more artistic in my being; and appreciating music, drama, and mythos. I began to see that a whole New World opened up to me and that there was a path away from spiraling down through reductionism into nihilism and instead spiraling upward into existential vitality and finding meaning in the theatrical productions of religion. But if you are one whose taste buds are numb to mythos and deaf to the music of the spheres and love is merely a biological transaction, then perhaps what I'm getting it will not resonate with you. I'm doing the best I can to put it into words.

Understood. But as you would describe your ascent into existential vitality and finding meaning in the theatrical productions of religion, others may find some of those productions to be more confining than liberating. You might also feel that way at times given that you’ve stated that you’re not sold on the historical details of J. Smith’s story. I find that interesting, because if the historicity isn’t there, then on what basis is the doctrine - constructed by the same source - valid? And where, then, is your found meaning actually originating from?

I would ask you if the inability to determine the existence of an afterlife - let alone its nature - is a limitation that you imagine folks outside of Mormonism are saddled with. I might similarly ask you why Mormonism posits that my body is a singular husk that serves a purpose largely undefined as anything more than a ‘test’, and that will be discarded upon my death so that I can rise into a spirit realm to … create more spiritual bodies. I would ask why that would be more liberating than considering - outside of Mormonism - that I am a continuously existing and evolving apparent individual being that is also the physical and communal manifestation of an unbroken chain of life since the first molecules necessary for it formed … that I am inextricably linked to virtually all other life given our shared origin … and that after my death, I will continue to exist, in part, within the matter of my own children, and theirs. And, in between my ‘birth’ and ‘death’ - being the composition of billions of years of tumult and the evolving and destructive process of the universe in transition - I will be able to experience some of the majesty and wonder of an unfathomable and limitless expanse of beauty too vast to ever know completely, but that I can also choose to step beyond the mere construction of it to act with kindness and compassion to others through free will, affecting the continuation of life long after I’m gone … if I accept that challenge.

I cannot imagine a greater gift than that opportunity.

Would adopting my mindset be better for you than believing the Mormon narrative? I don’t know. Only you do. But I’m comfortable with my choice, and I suspect as least as much as you are with yours.

I just thought I would let you know that I did respond to you in a general reply to the whole board, if you look for it and I address you by name.

[Gadianton]

To answer someone else's question, no Seven (the movie) was not woke, I never said it was.

My mistake. I thought your complaint was about woke feminism, and not originality. The only personal example you've provided of a poor movie experience was Batman, and your reasoning was that it ripped off the non-woke movie Seven.

It's turning out that you may have never had a bad movie-going experience due to woke feminism, and that all your talking points on this thread are recycling mansphere propaganda.

[canpakes]

To canpakes,

Regarding tribes, being an American culturally and speaking English itself is as you put it, "tribe-seeking or mimic-membership … to build identity." Just compare how you think and act now, the behaviors you mimic, the social trends, the catch phrases, even down to mannerisms, compared to how people thought and acted in the 70s, or 50s, 1800, or 5000 BC. We are all, whether we want to admit it or not, mimicking and tribe-seeking on some level. Respectfully, to deny that, I think is to deny a huge body of scientific research and philosophical input on the topic.

You can zoom out far enough with the concept of tribe to begin to apply it to broad enough swaths of people such as, ‘English speakers’ or ‘Americans’, but I see that as moving too far from your original proposition (e.g. woke liberal, evangelical, feminist, Mormon, etc.) to remain relevant to this discussion’s context.

This is not meant to sound condescending but I suggest you really sit down and read Nietzsche (and then study the Nazis and how they rejected the supernatural presuppositions of what I call Americanism), …

No worries, FR. You’d never offend me with a reading suggestion. You’d have to do a lot worse than that for me to feel offended.
: D

In the end, I respect your narrative and if it works for you, that is awesome.

Likewise, for yourself. Good luck, and enjoy the journey.

[Free Ranger]

To answer someone else's question, no Seven (the movie) was not woke, I never said it was.

My mistake. I thought your complaint was about woke feminism, and not originality. The only personal example you've provided of a poor movie experience was Batman, and your reasoning was that it ripped off the non-woke movie Seven.

It's turning out that you may have never had a bad movie-going experience due to woke feminism, and that all your talking points on this thread are recycling mansphere propaganda.

Yes it "may" be the case that I have no thoughts of my own and I have no personal experiences. It's also possible that your being unfair and dismissive.

In the beginning of this thread I discussed the TV show Euphoria. I watched the entire first and second season but in your mind my opinion was not formed by that experience. But instead you probably think that I read some articles about Euphoria that informed how I received the TV show Euphoria. This would not be true but in your mind it must be because I cannot have an opinion of my own but just must be copying other people's opinions. I don't know how you would feel if someone talked to you this way but I find it incredibly condescending, passive aggressive, and wokeistic gaslighting.

I also gave my opinion of the movie Deep Water in this thread, you probably think that what I had to say was not my own thoughts either. Again, that would not be true.

I was flipping around YouTube last night because I have been curious about the reaction to the Will Smith incident. The veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss, whom I would presume knows a thing or two about Hollywood, says at 5-8 minutes in the following link, what I have been saying. See:
https://youtu.be/VfEe4M2GmzE

I imagine if you sat down with this veteran actor you would probably want to say the same thing to him: that he is just having an alleged "manosphere" reaction and that he has not experienced any wokeness in the movies. Perhaps you might even wave a watch in front of him and say "repeat after me," performing a woke Jedi mind trick. But seriously, I'd like to see you tell that to his face. A veteran actor who's been around the block in Hollywood. I think he knows what he's talking about.

Or there is Quentin Tarantino talking to the fellow liberal Bill Maher, say the same thing I have been saying, see: https://youtu.be/j8aVT8WSHsc
But what does he know, right? I guess you would just tell Quentin Tarantino to his face that he's just copying the "manosphere" (whatever that means). I would like to watch that and see him take you to town on that false accusation.

I mean dude, really, you're really really out of line with the insinuations and false assertions.

I know you are going to have your retort to this but I'll be honest it's very boring and has really nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I would politely ask you to stick to the topic and my initial question, and not derail the thread. Why don't you start a new thread asking, "Are recent movies and TV shows too Woke?" I would be happy to comment on that thread.

[Free Ranger]

To canpakes,

Regarding tribes, being an American culturally and speaking English itself is as you put it, "tribe-seeking or mimic-membership … to build identity." Just compare how you think and act now, the behaviors you mimic, the social trends, the catch phrases, even down to mannerisms, compared to how people thought and acted in the 70s, or 50s, 1800, or 5000 BC. We are all, whether we want to admit it or not, mimicking and tribe-seeking on some level. Respectfully, to deny that, I think is to deny a huge body of scientific research and philosophical input on the topic.

You can zoom out far enough with the concept of tribe to begin to apply it to broad enough swaths of people such as, ‘English speakers’ or ‘Americans’, but I see that as moving too far from your original proposition (e.g. woke liberal, evangelical, feminist, Mormon, etc.) to remain relevant to this discussion’s context.

This is not meant to sound condescending but I suggest you really sit down and read Nietzsche (and then study the Nazis and how they rejected the supernatural presuppositions of what I call Americanism), …

No worries, FR. You’d never offend me with a reading suggestion. You’d have to do a lot worse than that for me to feel offended.
: D

In the end, I respect your narrative and if it works for you, that is awesome.

Likewise, for yourself. Good luck, and enjoy the journey.

Canpakes,

I'm glad I did not offend you with the reading suggestion. What I was getting at is that sometimes I myself find it annoying when someone just did not talk to me and give their opinion but then gives me a reading suggestion. I once experienced that with a Mormon apologist telling me to read this 300-page book instead of just answering my questions. That is why I said that. But I'm glad that you were gracious in how you interpreted it.

I will conclude with just a few more thoughts as my shoulder is feeling okay right now. Keep in mind that part of this is not just me responding to you but me responding to my old self that thought exactly like you.

I will conclude by saying I have gone through a radical shift in thinking. I was an atheistc "agnostic mystic" for years and was very content with that but deep down, I personally (not speaking for you), always felt something missing on an existential level. As the atheist for religion, Bruce Sheiman once said, to paraphrase, "Carl Sagan might feel spiritually uplifted saying he's made of dead stars, but it does nothing for me." This and other insights from Bruce Sheiman began to get me thinking. Just as I had read through all the anti-Mormonism material, including the giant tome Mormonism: Shadow or Reality by the Tanners, and read through every major atheist book, and the Sciences, I found myself wanting a philosophical challenge.

I am always questioning the current views I hold. If I have an opinion I will go to the best counter arguments and data to see if I might change my mind. I find this intellectually stimulating and I find that my ego actually handles changing my opinions quite well; and instead I feel intellectually exhilarated changing my views and undergoing paradigm shifts. I had already spent hours listening to debates between atheists and fundamentalist Christians and had looked into what Christian apologists had to say and I found their arguments and data unconvincing. So I decided to see what, if any, legitimate criticisms of worldview-atheism there were from "religious atheists," or any atheists or scientists and scientific data to support religion.

I would say the main books that really began to shift my thinking was reading An Atheist Defends Religion by Bruce Sheiman. I remember reading that book and it really led to a radical shift in some of my opinions. The next major shift to my thinking was reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, who is an atheist and leans politically Liberal. Then I began listening to Tom Holland on YouTube after starting to read his book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. While I don't agree with everything Jordan Peterson says I did watch many of his Bible Lectures and every single one of his debates with atheists. This brought me back to my earlier studies of Joseph Campbell and everything began coalescing in my mind, like soup marinating, and I began changing my points of view.

Each of these books I read or skimmed through below provide a wealth of scientific data and experiments and brain scan studies that show the benefits of religion and spirituality:

> Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew B. Newberg, Eugene G. d'Aquili, and Vince Rause

> Born to Believe: God, Science, and the Origin of Ordinary and Extraordinary Beliefs by Andrew B. Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman

> The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures by Nicholas Wade.

> How God Works: The Science Behind the Benefits of Religion by DeSteno

> The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God by Matthew Alper

> Did Man Create God?: Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain? by David E. Comings

> The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

> Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion by Alain de Botton.

> Why You Should Go to Church (Even If You’re Not Sure of Your Beliefs) by Brett and Kate McKay. From the ArtofManlininess.com article on religion on April 14, 2017.

> What Positive Psychologists and Mormons Can Learn From Each Other by Elisa V. Hunter, University of Pennsylvania.

Note, this book or thesis by Hunter was suggested to me by an agnostic Mormon who said this is the main reason he is Mormon for the pragmatic benefits.

All (or most) of the books above are written by atheists and agnostics who do not believe in the supernatural and don’t believe in the absolute truth of a religion's claims; yet they all conclude that the science is clear that we evolved a "spiritual brain" so to speak. Once I realized that the scientific data was clear that I am probably statically better off in a religion, as long as I could have good boundaries, I began to rethink religion in general and Mormonism in particular.

Even the controversial atheist Fredrick Nietzsche was "spiritual" (as a recent bio of him by Sue Prideaux argues). For example, as she references in her book, in Nietzsche's Human All Too Human, section 251 -- The Future of Science, Nietzsche wrote:

"... a higher culture must give man a double brain, two brain chambers, so to speak, one to feel science and the other to feel non-science, which can lie side by side, without confusion, divisible, exclusive; this is a necessity of health."

Even the nihilistic Nietzsche knew that human beings are most healthy when they have spiritual beliefs. Nietzsche was an atheist like Schopenhauer but unlike the pessimistic nihilism of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche's inner optimistic nature could not accept a pessimistic nihilism. Nietzsche was ultimately kind of a mystic prophet for Life itself; his "God" was ultimately life itself which he mythically personified through the Greek deity Dionysus. He was at his core pro-organic-Life, so even though he was a nihilist he wanted to present an optimistic nihilism, a way to affirm evolutionary Life (red in tooth and claw). His solution was to create an inspiring atheistic religion through his gospel, Thus Spake Zarathustra. He knew that replacing Christianity through rational argument would not work. He wanted nothing to do with the Vulcan Mystics of his own day whom he called "pale atheists," who did not really accept Reality as it is and Life as it is, but who despite their atheism were essentially "Cultural Christians." In order to bring back the pagan Greco-Roman values and ethic (that were more pro-organic-LIFE in all its brutality and seemingly unfairness), he needed to appeal to humanity's "spiritual brain" and so he piggybacked off of the creative genius of the New Testament authors, in generating a pagan-gospel (what he called the fifth gospel) with his Zarathrustra (see the translation and footnotes by Graham Parkes for details), which promoted a reversal of the Christian Ethos, and a return to pagan "might makes right" pagan-spirituality and aristocratic values (radically in harmony with the brute facts and "truths" of evolving hierarchical Nature, and Reality itself).

I have, like many who are philosophically inclined, a like/dislike, agree/disagree, relationship with Nietzsche and his writings. He really pulls you in and makes you feel like a friend. Sometimes you find yourself agreeing with him and other times, if you have a conscience, you will find yourself appalled.

But I appreciate Nietzsche because he ultimately helped me realize that ethically I am clearly Christian and that I do indeed believe in a soul even if I have my doubts and questions about a particular concept of deity. He helped me see that I was one of these pale atheists he condemns, that I was (and am) actually what he describes as a Cultural Christian, and that while his pagan spirituality had some appeal I ultimately could not in good conscience abandon Christianity and its ethical ideals.

Nietzsche helped me realize that I am very clearly culturally, spiritually, and ethically Christian (LDS Christian to be specific), and that is because I realized through Nietzsche that I do in fact hold (even if subconsciously) certain metaphysical propositions in order to form my personal ethics, so that even if I am atheistic leaning in my intellectual thinking I am (and always have been) existentially, ethically, and even metaphysically Christian.

I take Nietzsche in layers and many of the layers are deeply problematic but some layers of his philosophical onion are quite profound and interesting and even useful as a man in some ways. So when it comes to Mormonism, a lot of how I look at it is through the lens of asking: does it inspire my spiritual brain as Nietzsche put it. I find that it does. I also find that Joseph Smith himself was doing something very similar to what Nietzsche was doing; and like Dan Vogel and Fawn Brodie, I consider Smith a sincere dramatic artist who, unlike Nietzsche, did a rather good job of balancing a Muscular Christianity with the the Compassionism of Christianity. So that I agree with Harold Bloom that Smith was a religious genius. Flawed, fallible and imperfect, but in many ways commendable.

I hope you enjoy your journey as well; and perhaps me sharing my journey will be of some use to you, in whatever way, along your path.

[Res Ipsa]

Welcome, free ranger.

There’s lots packed into your OP, but the most important thing I have to say is, if Mormonism floats your boat, there’s nothing wrong with being a Mormon. Even if it’s just for the culture and not the religion.

But, I have to say that I just don’t buy the biology is destiny bit. If you find a woman who wants a Viking, be a Viking. But I wouldn’t try being a Viking before you know what she wants. Based on my experience, women are people with an incredibly broad range of personalities. The notion that they all want the same thing in a partner flies in the face of my experience.

Maybe you should try giving the TV a rest. It isn’t programmed to mirror real life. It’s programmed to get eyeballs on the screen and sell Pepsi and Chevy trucks. I haven’t ever felt disrespected by TV. But then I don’t expect validation from TV. I’m pretty comfortable in my own skin and don’t feel threatened by whichever wave of feminism we’re on.

Maybe a patriarchy works for you. It doesn’t for me. It seems crazy to me to disqualify half the human population from leadership positions on the basis of genetilia. In s couple generations, my profession has gone from almost entirely male to much more balanced, and I think the profession is better for it.

So, if you thrive on patriarchy, go find one and thrive. Just don’t try to impose it on me.

Res Ipsa, thanks for being cordial while disagreeing with me. I don't know why other people can't be more civil.

I totally agree with what you said about the Viking bit. I actually had my DNA done and I'm actually around 50% Swedish with some Iceland and thus Viking; but I don't act like a medieval Viking, trust me. I wouldn't even know how to be a berserker without laughing at myself. I am tall and blue eyed and pale skin and fairly strong winning weightlifting competitions in my youth (thanks to my ancestors) but I'm actually like I said high on empathy.

The point I was making in my initial post is that the TV show Euphoria in general presents a Leftist ideology yet in that one episode the screenwriters couldn't help themselves in pointing out the silliness of Wokeism and it's contradiction between the socially constructed ideal and the actual biology of the woman. If you read Nancy Friday's book on women's fantasies you will see that most women are not really attracted to the men of the Woke ideology that says how men should be and act.

Don't worry about other people. They are who they are.

I'm wondering if you are reading too much into Euphoria. Self contradiction is a theme in lots of TV shows. Sometimes its there for humor. Sometimes for pathos. Sometimes to show hypocrisy. Sometimes to show how complicated both life and people are. Im not sure it holds up in terms of the broad conclusions you are drawing.

As to Nancy Friday, aren't those books about 50 years old now? Yes, they were revolutionary in their day because they brought to light that women also had sexual fantasies. But they weren't random samples. And they're outdated. I don't think one can just assume that the fantasies she wrote about in her book are representative of women's fantasies today.

But when you use the phrase "not really attracted to men of the Woke ideology," it sounds to me as if you are extrapolating from fantasies about sex to what someone is attracted to in terms of a life partner. And those are two different things. Confusing fantasies with reality is almost always a mistake.

To be clear, I agree with you that every woman is different and they want different things romantically. As I said, I am high in empathy (and intuitiveness), and I've never had any complaints from women and no that is not me bragging on my physicality in the bedroom, it is me referring to my thoughtful, sentimental and poetic side.

So the biology bit of it I am pointing out is that women are biologically attracted to certain masculine traits. This is not my opinion, this is what all the science shows. If you want I will go into more detail of all that I have learned on the subject. This does not mean that women want a total jerk, it just means that they want certain masculine traits that are biologically embedded in them from millions of years of evolution. The same is true of me as a man, there are certain feminine traits that I am biologically designed to find attractive. This is really not in dispute objectively according to science.

So the reason I brought up the TV show is because the TV show itself was pointing out this contradiction between what this character Kat actually biologically wants as revealed in her sex fantasy (which I admit is probably clearly meant as a hyperbolic scenario yet true on a deeper level), in contrast to the "nice guy" her boyfriend is, which bores the crap out of her.

You're probably right that I currently watch too much TV. We all have our vices. I'm undergoing recuperation from a shoulder injury so I can't go to the gym currently and thus have more time on my hands.

I'm not convinced that "women" are biologically attracted to "certain masculine traits" in a way that matters in terms of how a male person should conduct himself. It makes sense that "attraction" would involve both processes we are aware of and some that run under the hood. Who knows how that all nets out. But empirically, it appears that women are attracted to men who exhibit an extremely wide variety of behaviors. I say empirically, because one only has to look at the wide variety of men involved in pairings with women.

The good boy/bad boy dichotomy has become a trope in entertainment. Again, I don't think there is a basis that allows to extrapolate anything from that to actual women and what any woman "wants."

Regarding me being "for patriarchy," my view is actually a little more nuanced. Like I said, one my favorite movie is Aliens with a strong female lead. I am not intimidated by strong women. I just don't like the Woke cult doing what it is doing. I also would have no problem with Mormon women getting the priesthood but to be honest I'm not bothered by women not having the priesthood either. I haven't thought the issue all the way through but it seems to me like a kind of trade-off which I can explore if you want. The main reason I'm not bothered by issues like that, is that I really started questioning my Liberal positions I had in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was actually Nietzsche, who is heralded by the Liberal professors, that actually made me more Conservative and more respectful of male hierarchy which we see in all the ape species and we are apes. I began to realize reading Nietzsche that when you take a cold hard realistic look at reality, Life itself is hierarchical and mostly patriarchal with a few matriarchal exceptions like the bonobos. I also began to realize that during my exMormon atheist phase which eventually, through my reductionism, led me into nihilism, I realized that the progressivism I was imbibing was doing nothing for me as a masculine male. It just led me into a bland passivity and existential depression in many ways. So I got to thank Nietzsche in many ways for kind of giving me a spark in my ass in a way, it's hard to explain and put into words as a man to explain it but he really did effectively call me out of pessimistic nihilism and unmotivating progressivism and into a more optimistic nihilism with more masculine vitality and then this led me toward seeing the artistic value and vitality of religious humanism, specifically Christian humanism which then led to me thinking of reassessing Mormonism.

"Woke cult," in my opinion, has become one of those trash can terms that people throw a whole bunch of stuff into simply because they don't like it. It seems to be the amped up version of "politically correct," which I generally have equated with something like "basic civility." in my opinion, it's a term that allows critics of certain things to avoid talking about specific behaviors and why they are irritated by them.

So, I like your reference to bonobos. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom include chimps and bonobos -- two species with almost diametrically opposed social behaviors. Yet, when we talk about "natural behavior," we focus on the chimps. Why not the bonobos? Why is one more "natural" than the others. But beyond that, what you are describing reminds me of the naturalistic fallacy. Why should we be looking biological and sociological history and accepting that as how things should be. Evolution doesn't happen in real time, and there is no way that it can keep up with the ever increasing rates of change we find ourselves in. And, given modern medicine, it's questionable whether any selection pressure is occurring today in terms of male and female behavior, meaning it's going to wander all over the map. Indeed, male and female behavior is very likely as much a social construct as it is biology.

Individual stories are just that. I don't think I ever set out to become a "masculine male" as a project. I was too busy just trying to figure out how to be a decent person after my entire framework of thinking collapsed. When you use terms like "masculine vitality" I literally don't know what you mean. To me, vitality isn't a gendered thing. Most things aren't.

I grappled with postmodernism, and came out an optimistic and motivated progressive. It's never occurred to me to view that through gendered lenses. I know men and women with similar views, and it's never seemed to me to think about gender differences in context of those views. I'm a unique person. So are the others. Why spend time trying to classify how they think about the same general ideas into categories that seem artificial in that context.

I find value in all kinds of things -- even things I don't associate or affiliate with. I don't correlate artistic vitality with any category of people other than those who demonstrate artistic vitality. I don't associate Mormonism today with either category. I think correlation is the opposite of vitality. And I don't see Mormonism as an artistic force. It may have been more of both in the past, but I don't see it today. Still, if being a religious humanist or a Christian humanist or a Mormon humanist or a Mormon helps you thrive -- helps you live the kind of life you want to live, then I think you should be any or all of those. And if they don't work out, try something else.