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

[Marcus]

Oh, and how could I forget our dealings with Rosebud, KK, and jp? Being told many times that I am an awful person for criticizing them in their righteous crusade to stop John Dehlin was probably the final nail in the coffin.

Final nail in what coffin? I’m missing how this ties in with the OP’s position.

[Morley]

I read the one about cult behavior in wokeism, and I really liked it. That said, I belong to the cult of academia. It is a hugely abusive, high-demand cult that tolerates a narrow range of opinion. I am thinking that there is a proliferation of "cults" that are hardly ever recognized as such.

I had some experiences that dampened my initial enthusiasm for today's progressives. The first was when I foolishly thought I could go to a Mormon feminist venue and share my honest opinion as a guy. I was then lectured about my "mansplaining" (evidently this is a man sharing his frank opinion) and told I needed to learn how to be a good "ally." That was a huge red flag to me. That was when I started to suspect that we were not just talking about promoting the rights of women in Mormonism but about quite something else, and that I really just needed to sit on the sidelines and not take part in the discussion until I learned the lingo and the right views.

That's when I checked out and decided that I could support Mormon feminism without joining a new cult.

The second was when a leading young scholar in my academic discipline decided that the discipline had to be utterly dismantled unless it learned quickly how to be anti-racist. What that meant was realizing a very tall, even utopian goal that I doubt any community of human beings could ever achieve. Nevertheless, we were being told that this must take place right away with a metaphorical gun held to our professional heads.

Although I could see the point of what was being discussed--and I actually do believe in the concept of systemic racism--I also knew that racism was a pretty late construct that could not have been a problem for my area of study when it was invented in the 4th century BC. I believed that what was once not racist could once again not be racist, and that we should not leave it to utopian idealists to decide when we were sufficiently reformed before we once again turned our attention to the main business of our area of study.

Finally, the self-appointed gender police decided that BYU was not a safe place for a conference in my field. They circulated a petition advocating a boycott of the conference scheduled to be held at BYU because BYU is "not safe" (which is noticeably different from "dangerous," which must be too transparently ridiculous to risk claiming) for non-cis-hetero people. Thinking for myself, which is always a bad idea, I decided that it might be more beneficial to have openly gay people on campus, especially for closeted gay people on campus, than it would do any good to deny everyone their presence to score political points.

That is not what the powers that be decided was more important. And by powers that be, I mean the people who gather together to write righteous petitions without any kind of community deliberation in order to force their wills on the whole.

This is when I started to question whether I was really a good progressive, after all.

In my opinion, the questioning of these things is what makes you a good progressive. I hope that a significant portion of the nature of progressivism is reframing, critiquing, adjusting, and questioning. If we don't do it to ourselves, we're doomed, because we're blindly walking off the edge of the Earth.

[Morley]

Or the arguments in the book: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

You keep bringing up this book. Have you actually read it? What do you think it's saying? I think reviews, interviews, and youtube often somewhat misrepresent the content.

[Free Ranger]

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."

FR,

Using your terminology above, I’d probably drop the ‘atheistic’ part of the label, and characterize myself more simply as ‘agnostic mystic’. I haven’t truly attempted to pin down my approach into any particular camp or as adhering strictly to any label, though.

Sherman’s opinion is fine, but I’d assume that there’s more context to his statement (if you have a reference for the source, that’d be great). He may not be ‘uplifted’, but neither might Sagan be, so much as observant and impressed with the process. I’m not sure that uplifted belongs in this any more so than saying one was uplifted in seeing a redwood grow from simple water and chemicals. The overall process is impressive, though, be it one absent a god, or if it was the result of a planned process by a designer/god. Uplifting might speak more to intent after-the-fact from what results of the process, and more related to what the individual can be capable of and choose to do, versus what more traditional religions have planned for the individual.

One nice aspect about agnostic mysticism would seem that it excludes no possibilities, whereas the LDS (or any other) narrative imposes much stricter rules, controls, conditions and outcomes … so it’s hard for me to see (mathematically or otherwise) that it would be more stifling - or less fulfilling - than the LDS alternative.

Anyhow, nice reading list. Thanks!

Just one more quick response.

It occurred to me that maybe you might be curious as to my opinion as to what else you said.

The way I see it, agnostic mysticism, like I said, is a worthy and respectable secular spirituality. But it is in my opinion largely a solo endeavor, or it largely excludes those who are not as intellectual and who cannot understand the mathematics or don't have training in the laboratory, etc. I happen to be one of these perhaps "intellectualy capable" persons who spent the intellectual energy to read through all or most of the sciences and have a greater appreciation for it. However, I know many people who just do not have the patience or intellectual capacity to do so. Therefore, for most people, what is more fulfilling is the symbols and metaphors and rituals of traditional religion.

As you said, "LDS (or any other) narrative imposes much stricter rules, controls, conditions and outcomes …" But that is the power of it. It is through the shared symbolic narrative and those tribal parameters that the LDS tribe is able to synergize and thrive. For you are stepping into a theatrical drama, a symbolic narrative and suspending your disbelief like watching a play or movie; so that you experience emotions and elation you would not experience in a laboratory or reading equations. I think the "Lab experience" and "Mythic experience" are igniting different parts of the brain. Like I said, I did get goosebumps re-watching those pro-science videos, but I also get goosebumps in various religious settings or absorbing various religious content. One is not better than the other, they just speak two different kinds of people and different parts of the brain.

As for myself personally, I feel like I have the best of both worlds. I have been influenced by David Engleman's possibilianism. He summarizes it briefly here: https://youtu.be/d0qwXL9cZzY
If you want to learn more about possibilianism, he has longer videos on YouTube.

You could call me a "Mormon possibilian." In other words, I leave open in the possibility space of my mind various options/ possibilities. Maybe we are just specks of dust on a pale blue dot and the our lives have no ultimate meaning and we have no soul, no inalienable Rights endowed by a Creator, and there is no Cosmic Intelligence behind any of it. If that were to be the case then I do have a possibility space where I entertain agnostic mysticism. But I also allow for a possibility space in my mind for the LDS Mythos is possible.

And if Nietzsche is right, and the objective Pursuit Of Truth is just a product of platonic Christianity and there is no soul nor objective Right or Wrong, and the most honest form of atheism is Nietzsche's view, then I still find myself still choosing Mormonism as a working mythos because of its anti-Augustinian Lifeward energy.

This is what I like about reconnecting with my Mormon Heritage, is that I'm doing it on my own terms. For example, in the 1891 Doctrine and Covenants, in the footnotes its recommended one reads Pratt's pamphlet, The Absurdities of Immaterialism. A pamphlet that is very rational in its rhetoric. So what one finds is that Mormonism is originally a rather rational and humanistic religion. The School of the Prophets was essentially a scholarly think-tank. Joseph Smith highly emphasized a theology where the glory of God is intelligence and it is holy to read good books on philosophy and science.

Over the years however it has grown to seek to fit into Protestant cultural norms and sound and act more Protestant after 1890, and when it began producing the Correlated Program around the 1980s. But Joseph Smith was actually more intellectual and artistically exploratory than the current Brighamite system in the Correlation Program. But Scholars like Terryl Givens and Patrick Mason are trying to reignite some of that original creativity and exploration while respecting the tribal boundaries.

I guess you could call me more of a Nauvoo Mormon or Pratt Brothers Mormon, to a large degree, when it comes to my possibility space of entertaining Mormonism. As I see it, Joseph Smith and the Pratt Brothers were seeking to move the Mormons toward a post-Protestant spiritual naturalism. Reading through the work of Terryl Givens, this becomes clear. I explore this on my blog at http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/

I happen to be one of those people, that like Nietzsche has it seems, more activity in both sides of my brain than on average, a strong analytical side and a religious side. Perhaps this has something to do with my genetics, as I have in my family line relatives who are some of them "high functioning autistic" (or Aspergers) with engineers and scientists and also relatives that are artists and poets. I seem to be somewhere in the middle, being high in empathy, conceptual and artistic but also highly analytical and logical.

I do think that you can feed that religious side of our brain through strictly agnostic mysticism. But for me personally, that ultimately did not feel fulfilling because of the other side of my brain that is more perhaps attuned to the sphere of religion.

It took me twenty years to realize that I enjoy being part of a tribe, having a Mythos that grounds an Ethos, and realized that Viktor Frankl is correct that the will to meaning is important.

I needed to read the science on tribalism in order to allow myself to not feel as if I was just engaging in groupthink or being part of the herd (as Nietzsche calls it). Nietzsche was wrong on that, we are herd animals (or social mammals) to a large degree. Once I allowed myself to embrace that part of myself, my tribal self, I realized that connecting with my Mormon ancestors and heritage and feeling connected to them (in my own way) gave me a profound sense of meaning and elation that I've never experienced to the same degree when contemplating my connectivity to the stars or the laws of physics.

[Free Ranger]

I agree with what you wrote.

But I do think that it's important to point out the excesses of Wokeism where it causes harm.

Like pointing out the cult behavior of wokeism: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ...

Or joining exmormon Jonathan Streeter over at "thoughts on things and stuff," on his YouTube channel as he realized that Mormonism is not nearly as problematic as wokeism nowadays, and has devoted his analytical powers to pointing out its problems. See his channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh3uDMH0GZlwl1JOoHQ

Or the arguments in the book: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

I read the one about cult behavior in wokeism, and I really liked it. That said, I belong to the cult of academia. It is a hugely abusive, high-demand cult that tolerates a narrow range of opinion. I am thinking that there is a proliferation of "cults" that are hardly ever recognized as such.

I had some experiences that dampened my initial enthusiasm for today's progressives. The first was when I foolishly thought I could go to a Mormon feminist venue and share my honest opinion as a guy. I was then lectured about my "mansplaining" (evidently this is a man sharing his frank opinion) and told I needed to learn how to be a good "ally." That was a huge red flag to me. That was when I started to suspect that we were not just talking about promoting the rights of women in Mormonism but about quite something else, and that I really just needed to sit on the sidelines and not take part in the discussion until I learned the lingo and the right views.

That's when I checked out and decided that I could support Mormon feminism without joining a new cult.

The second was when a leading young scholar in my academic discipline decided that the discipline had to be utterly dismantled unless it learned quickly how to be anti-racist. What that meant was realizing a very tall, even utopian goal that I doubt any community of human beings could ever achieve. Nevertheless, we were being told that this must take place right away with a metaphorical gun held to our professional heads.

Although I could see the point of what was being discussed--and I actually do believe in the concept of systemic racism--I also knew that racism was a pretty late construct that could not have been a problem for my area of study when it was invented in the 4th century BC. I believed that what was once not racist could once again not be racist, and that we should not leave it to utopian idealists to decide when we were sufficiently reformed before we once again turned our attention to the main business of our area of study.

Finally, the self-appointed gender police decided that BYU was not a safe place for a conference in my field. They circulated a petition advocating a boycott of the conference scheduled to be held at BYU because BYU is "not safe" (which is noticeably different from "dangerous," which must be too transparently ridiculous to risk claiming) for non-cis-hetero people. Thinking for myself, which is always a bad idea, I decided that it might be more beneficial to have openly gay people on campus, especially for closeted gay people on campus, than it would do any good to deny everyone their presence to score political points.

That is not what the powers that be decided was more important. And by powers that be, I mean the people who gather together to write righteous petitions without any kind of community deliberation in order to force their wills on the whole.

This is when I started to question whether I was really a good progressive, after all.

Kishkumen,


Thank you for sharing that about the cult of Academia. It fits with what I'm saying, that if human nature is human nature that is tribal and prone to cultish tendencies then what does it matter if one decides to be a New Order Mormon/ Cultural Mormon if they are already experiencing cultish and tribal behavior everywhere else; especially in places like Academia. In other words, I used to think that leaving my Mormon tribe I would enter into this pure and free world of free thought and scientific methodology and rationality. But that is not the case, especially now in 2022. As you put it, "I am thinking that there is a proliferation of "cults" that are hardly ever recognized as such."

Your experience in the Mormon Feminism venue is exactly what I'm talking about. It's no different than attending a Mormon Chapel and learning the correct lingo and not "rocking the boat" there. So it all comes down to what you value more, and the trade-offs you are willing to make. Obviously if your job is in Academia you have no choice. As for me if I were to go back to the Mormon church I would be making trade-offs. But as of right now my thinking is that I still value 90% of the content in Mormon scripture and hymns, etc. As 90% of it is a constant reminder to be kind and thoughtful (basic ethics), family values, and honoring your tribal ancestors and respecting tradition. What is missing in the secular cults is a complete and utter lack of ethics and kindness in many cases.

Your experiences are reminding me of Bret Weinstein and how he was treated in what he experienced at Evergreen. I just I don't understand how it is that more exmormons (like you) don't see that wokeism is just as cultish than the worst forms of Mormonism.

[Free Ranger]

I watched the entire first and second season but in your mind my opinion was not formed by that experience.

Then you could have reminded me to go back and read your review about that series as it (apparently) answers my question. I will go back and read your review today. Instead, you specifically answered me by complaining about Batman, and pointing out that it ripped off unwoke Seven, which has nothing to do with your crusade against woke feminism.

Gadianton, all I can say is I just love ya. Not in a sentimental cheesy kind of way. I just love ya bruutha. Keep up the good fight!

[Free Ranger]

Or the arguments in the book: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

You keep bringing up this book. Have you actually read it? What do you think it's saying? I think reviews, interviews, and youtube often somewhat misrepresent the content.

In all do respect, I'm not going to jump through your hoops, as I've seen after lurking on Boards that that is often a method by some. If you don't want to read the book, simply listen to the YouTube interviews of the author himself discussing the ideas in his book.

And please don't respond with more questions trying to get me to jump through more hoops and deflecting from the actual subject matter of this thread. Not saying you are going to do that but I'm just suspicious given the way I've been treated by some others (not all) in this thread.

I answered your question, let's move on.

[Morley]

You keep bringing up this book. Have you actually read it? What do you think it's saying? I think reviews, interviews, and youtube often somewhat misrepresent the content.

In all do respect, I'm not going to jump through your hoops, as I've seen after lurking on Boards that that is often a method by some. If you don't want to read the book, simply listen to the YouTube interviews of the author himself discussing the ideas in his book.

And please don't respond with more questions trying to get me to jump through more hoops and deflecting from the actual subject matter of this thread. Not saying you are going to do that but I'm just suspicious given the way I've been treated by some others (not all) in this thread.

I answered your question, let's move on.

I've read it. I don't think he's saying what you're suggesting.

I have to wonder if you're giving a reading assignment on a book you haven't read.

[Free Ranger]

In all do respect, I'm not going to jump through your hoops, as I've seen after lurking on Boards that that is often a method by some. If you don't want to read the book, simply listen to the YouTube interviews of the author himself discussing the ideas in his book.

And please don't respond with more questions trying to get me to jump through more hoops and deflecting from the actual subject matter of this thread. Not saying you are going to do that but I'm just suspicious given the way I've been treated by some others (not all) in this thread.

I answered your question, let's move on.

I've read it. I don't think he's saying what you're suggesting.

I have to wonder if you're giving a reading assignment on a book you haven't read.

That's your opinion.

I now remember why I was suspicious. Your name was familiar to me and now I know why. I'm not going to play your games and jump through your hoops.

Please don't deflect from the thread. Allow for members who are interested in having a good faith dialogue.

I am politely saying I do not want to engage with you as I do not trust that you have good intentions toward me.

[Morley]

I've read it. I don't think he's saying what you're suggesting.

I have to wonder if you're giving a reading assignment on a book you haven't read.

That's your opinion.

I now remember why I was suspicious. Your name was familiar to me and now I know why. I'm not going to play your games and jump through your hoops.

Please don't deflect from the thread. Allow for members who are interested in having a good faith dialogue.

I am politely saying I do not want to engage with you as I do not trust that you have good intentions toward me.

My intentions have nothing to do with you. They have to do with your arguments.

Apparently you don't wish to discuss the contents of the book that you've promoted a half dozen times in this thread. So be it.

Be well.