What if Joseph Smith was just an Alpha Ape in tune with Nature?

[Lem]

Forbes magazine, 01/26/21

Are you tired of reducing masculinity into the two nonsensical, made-up categories known as “alpha” and “beta” males?

Well, a viral Twitter post on Monday drew the internet’s attention to the term “sigma male,” another exciting and innovative way in which society can limit masculine expression.

The Twitter post highlights media which reduces the broad spectrum of masculinity into a rigid hierarchy, composed of “alpha,” “beta,” and “sigma” males, so that men can understand and accept our place in society, without ever considering ourselves as ... you know, human beings with unlimited potential.

What is an Alpha Male?

For those who are unfamiliar with manhood mythology, the concept of an alpha male is based on the absurdly illogical belief that groups of humans resemble a wolf pack, destined to be led by an aggressive, domineering leader, a.k.a., the “alpha.”

Not only is this not how humans operate, it’s not even how wolf packs function; the now-debunked theory was based on observations of wolves living in captivity, and subsequent studies of wild wolves concluded that wolf behavior was far more nuanced than a binary between an alpha and his cowering subordinates.

But the correction came too late - the concept of an alpha male stuck around, firmly embedded in pop culture, an ideology that can justify oppressive hierarchies and reduce people to empty stereotypes. The alpha male is practically a star sign, imbued with hint of incel ideology, used to confirm poisonous perspectives and exaggerate pre-existing insecurities.

What is a Sigma Male?

A sigma male is, essentially, an introverted alpha male, offering misguided men a chance to place themselves at the very top of this imaginary hierarchy, without the loud, boisterous personality that an “alpha” boasts.

Examples of a sigma male apparently include John Wick, because who doesn't want to compare themselves to a cool, composed assassin? Although, when it comes to choosing a role model that exemplifies a non-existent category of manhood, one could do a lot worse than Keanu Reeves.

Other made-up categories include: beta, gamma and omega males, all of whom are placed towards the bottom of the hierarchy, meaning that they are unlikely to find financial stability, or attract a sexual partner.

If you haven’t noticed, this reductive line of thinking is exactly how pick-up artists view the world; it’s about as insightful as a Buzzfeed quiz that categorizes humans into different flavors of Starbucks syrup.

Will the sigma male prove to be as influential (and misleading) as the alpha?

Perhaps - Twitter is pretty good at popularizing poorly thought-out ideas.

Dani Di Placid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplac ... explained/

[Cultellus]

Forbes magazine, 01/26/21

Are you tired of reducing masculinity into the two nonsensical, made-up categories known as “alpha” and “beta” males?

Well, a viral Twitter post on Monday drew the internet’s attention to the term “sigma male,” another exciting and innovative way in which society can limit masculine expression.

The Twitter post highlights media which reduces the broad spectrum of masculinity into a rigid hierarchy, composed of “alpha,” “beta,” and “sigma” males, so that men can understand and accept our place in society, without ever considering ourselves as ... you know, human beings with unlimited potential.

What is an Alpha Male?

For those who are unfamiliar with manhood mythology, the concept of an alpha male is based on the absurdly illogical belief that groups of humans resemble a wolf pack, destined to be led by an aggressive, domineering leader, a.k.a., the “alpha.”

Not only is this not how humans operate, it’s not even how wolf packs function; the now-debunked theory was based on observations of wolves living in captivity, and subsequent studies of wild wolves concluded that wolf behavior was far more nuanced than a binary between an alpha and his cowering subordinates.

But the correction came too late - the concept of an alpha male stuck around, firmly embedded in pop culture, an ideology that can justify oppressive hierarchies and reduce people to empty stereotypes. The alpha male is practically a star sign, imbued with hint of incel ideology, used to confirm poisonous perspectives and exaggerate pre-existing insecurities.

What is a Sigma Male?

A sigma male is, essentially, an introverted alpha male, offering misguided men a chance to place themselves at the very top of this imaginary hierarchy, without the loud, boisterous personality that an “alpha” boasts.

Examples of a sigma male apparently include John Wick, because who doesn't want to compare themselves to a cool, composed assassin? Although, when it comes to choosing a role model that exemplifies a non-existent category of manhood, one could do a lot worse than Keanu Reeves.

Other made-up categories include: beta, gamma and omega males, all of whom are placed towards the bottom of the hierarchy, meaning that they are unlikely to find financial stability, or attract a sexual partner.

If you haven’t noticed, this reductive line of thinking is exactly how pick-up artists view the world; it’s about as insightful as a Buzzfeed quiz that categorizes humans into different flavors of Starbucks syrup.

Will the sigma male prove to be as influential (and misleading) as the alpha?

Perhaps - Twitter is pretty good at popularizing poorly thought-out ideas.

Dani Di Placid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplac ... explained/

FFS

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Is there a middle way? I am after that middle way?

Then you should be putting this kind of effort into following the Buddha.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

You wrote, “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.” That’s pretty funny. And I don’t disagree. I am not a TBM. I do think you are denying though that the Book of Mormon is complex for a 23 year old to write. I could not have written the Book of Mormon when I was 23, and even with Cowdery's help it is still pretty impressive for 20 something year olds. OK, it is not Shakespeare, but why can't we acknowledge anything rather amazing/above average?

Here's the test: when do you plan on rereading the Book of Mormon through, start to finish? If the answer is you don't plan on re-reading it again from start to finish, I think we agree about the quality of content in the Book of Mormon.

I don’t think it is controversial to say that. In all due respect, I think you might be trying too hard to paint Smith only in a negative light.

I've stated the Book of Mormon is not complex. It's not. I've stated Grant Hardy's book calling it complex was garbage. It is. I regret the hours lost in reading it as I bought and read it out of a promise I would do so only to discover it was clearly a book I would normally have abandoned early on so as to not waste time reading garbage when there are so many great books I will never have time to read. I'm bitter about that and learned a lesson about how I phrase a promise of reading something going forward. Jesus that book was bad.

Here's the thing: Joseph Smith the person has no connection to my life now. None. I don't think about him and I don't have much to do with the religion he started now outside of participating on this board and an occasion comment from family living in Utah still. I don't feel the need to paint him in a negative light just as I don't feel the need to elevate him, either. Everyone is complex but we don't deal with people as complex individuals out if economy. We simplify by necessity. Is Joseph Smith complex as a historical figure? Sure. Should I look to his life for examples on how to live? Hell no. Should I reread the Book of Mormon again? Again, hell no. Should I feel angry about being raised in the church he started? Why waste the time?

Again, I agree with Dan Vogel and many others, smarter than me on the subject (I have read), that Smith is the sole author of the Book of Mormon. We will have to agree to disagree.

They aren't that smart, then. Smith and Cowdery collaborating during the writing of the Book of Mormon is documented in the D&C. They discussed the content. And again, if Smith could have written it on his own he would have the first time he tried but failed. The facts are what they are. Cowdery changed the calculus where before his involvement was a slow process of which we have limited remaining product. With Cowdery's involvement they produced the pre-edited version of the book we have. We have a product of the 19th century whose production was affected by Smith and Cowdery working together in a way Smith working with others prior to that where the result was unable to match what we see when Cowdery was involved.

There are very few hard facts really available to us in the 21st century when it comes to the production of the Book of Mormon. But the timeline is as close to one as we have access to, and it strongly favors a Smith/Cowdery collaboration scenario over a Smith as primary sole source scenario.

Regarding Dexter. Well give me your opinion why don’t ya! LOL. Too funny! I would tweak your comments on Dexter to: it had one great season (the first), two excellent seasons (with Jonathan Lithgow and Miguel Luis Prado) and the rest bordering between entertaining but good enough, and some kind of mediocre. The female poisoner was hot, so that season gets a pass. The last episodes were pretty stupid, "Hey I’m an expert on serial killers and rich but won’t higher a body guard and security system," etc.
. . ..

If no season of Dexter dropped below mediocre by your scale I can see why you might think the Book of Mormon is complex.

[Free Ranger]

Is there a middle way? I am after that middle way?

Then you should be putting this kind of effort into following the Buddha.

- Doc

Is that meant as a joke? If so, funny. But if you are serious, did you not read my entire post?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Then you should be putting this kind of effort into following the Buddha.

- Doc

Is that meant as a joke? If so, funny. But if you are serious, did you not read my entire post?

I did, but what you wrote was just a pastiche of alt-Right nonsense in order to push whatever narrative you’re attempting to push here.

- Doc

[Free Ranger]

You wrote, “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.” That’s pretty funny. And I don’t disagree. I am not a TBM. I do think you are denying though that the Book of Mormon is complex for a 23 year old to write. I could not have written the Book of Mormon when I was 23, and even with Cowdery's help it is still pretty impressive for 20 something year olds. OK, it is not Shakespeare, but why can't we acknowledge anything rather amazing/above average?

Here's the test: when do you plan on rereading the Book of Mormon through, start to finish? If the answer is you don't plan on re-reading it again from start to finish, I think we agree about the quality of content in the Book of Mormon.

I don’t think it is controversial to say that. In all due respect, I think you might be trying too hard to paint Smith only in a negative light.

I've stated the Book of Mormon is not complex. It's not. I've stated Grant Hardy's book calling it complex was garbage. It is. I regret the hours lost in reading it as I bought and read it out of a promise I would do so only to discover it was clearly a book I would normally have abandoned early on so as to not waste time reading garbage when there are so many great books I will never have time to read. I'm bitter about that and learned a lesson about how I phrase a promise of reading something going forward. Jesus that book was bad.

Here's the thing: Joseph Smith the person has no connection to my life now. None. I don't think about him and I don't have much to do with the religion he started now outside of participating on this board and an occasion comment from family living in Utah still. I don't feel the need to paint him in a negative light just as I don't feel the need to elevate him, either. Everyone is complex but we don't deal with people as complex individuals out if economy. We simplify by necessity. Is Joseph Smith complex as a historical figure? Sure. Should I look to his life for examples on how to live? Hell no. Should I reread the Book of Mormon again? Again, hell no. Should I feel angry about being raised in the church he started? Why waste the time?

Again, I agree with Dan Vogel and many others, smarter than me on the subject (I have read), that Smith is the sole author of the Book of Mormon. We will have to agree to disagree.

They aren't that smart, then. Smith and Cowdery collaborating during the writing of the Book of Mormon is documented in the D&C. They discussed the content. And again, if Smith could have written it on his own he would have the first time he tried but failed. The facts are what they are. Cowdery changed the calculus where before his involvement was a slow process of which we have limited remaining product. With Cowdery's involvement they produced the pre-edited version of the book we have. We have a product of the 19th century whose production was affected by Smith and Cowdery working together in a way Smith working with others prior to that where the result was unable to match what we see when Cowdery was involved.

There are very few hard facts really available to us in the 21st century when it comes to the production of the Book of Mormon. But the timeline is as close to one as we have access to, and it strongly favors a Smith/Cowdery collaboration scenario over a Smith as primary sole source scenario.

Regarding Dexter. Well give me your opinion why don’t ya! LOL. Too funny! I would tweak your comments on Dexter to: it had one great season (the first), two excellent seasons (with Jonathan Lithgow and Miguel Luis Prado) and the rest bordering between entertaining but good enough, and some kind of mediocre. The female poisoner was hot, so that season gets a pass. The last episodes were pretty stupid, "Hey I’m an expert on serial killers and rich but won’t higher a body guard and security system," etc.
. . ..

If no season of Dexter dropped below mediocre by your scale I can see why you might think the Book of Mormon is complex.

It's funny you say that because I just started re-reading the Book of Mormon from start to finish, which I haven't done since I was 18 years old prior to my mission. I purchased the Maxwell Institute Edition thinking maybe the format will be more interesting. I'm interested in reading it again from a nontheistic-humanistic perspective. I already have some notes and I can paste them on this board if you like. Or I can make an audio recording just for you to help put you to sleep. Regarding the quality and content of the Book of Mormon, I'm only in the beginning, but that is what I am interested in right now, the utility of the content from a Joseph Campbell position. So far, re-reading it I'm experiencing mixed emotions, from seeing how it can in places be somewhat inspiring from a Muscular Christianity perspective (Nephi shocks/power zaps his brothers! No "turning the other cheek" with young Joe), but also annoying with the constant "and it came to pass," why the F have they not edited that out by now, and the repetition of passages like Isaiah, so boring. I confess I skimmed over those chapters. But yes I still find it complex. I know me saying that is going to piss you off, lol. You're awesome. I love your passion.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. Besides who cares anyway what our opinion is. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind on Book of Mormon authorship it seems. We might as well argue about what is the best TV series of all time. We could find some way to do a survey and have several people read the Book of Mormon without bias and tell them all the details like it was composed by a 23 year old, and then see what most laypeople and academics combined would say. I would venture to say they would end up saying it's complex, boring or pretentious or whatever, but nevertheless, complex.

you said: If no season of Dexter dropped below mediocre by your scale I can see why you might think the Book of Mormon is complex.

Can't tell if you're being humorous or snarky. But you crack me up none the less. Not sure why you're so riled up about who wrote the Book of Mormon. Or why you seem so irritated at different perspectives when it comes to how to deal with one's Mormon heritage. The top of the website says "all are welcome," "Chapel Mormons," "Internet Mormons," "Critics," and even "Apologists" (which I'm clearly not and they would lynch me if I voiced my views on their boards). But OK guy, I hear ya. I hear your energy and emotion. And just so you can relax, the homework for this evening is no longer reading Third Nephi and giving me a book report, instead I want you to relax this evening and watch the one great redeeming fourth season of Dexter with John Lithgow, with some soft music and E.O. Wilson lecturing in the background while peace-loving robotic nymphs rub your feet with seer stones.

I will leave you with a warm digital hug from your Friendly Neighborhood Viking.

[honorentheos]

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'm joshing you. Given the tough guy talk it was funny to me, anyway. Saying Dan Vogel isn't very smart or that my opinion of Dexter is the only correct opinion...yeah.

But in all seriousness, opportunity costs. There are more truly excellent books in the world than any one person could read in a lifetime. It blows my mind that someone would reread an ok book. And I really don't think the Book of Mormon rises to even being just ok. If I have regrets about being raised LDS, it would be in having been convinced rereading that book had merit.

[honorentheos]

Is that meant as a joke? If so, funny. But if you are serious, did you not read my entire post?

I did, but what you wrote was just a pastiche of alt-Right nonsense in order to push whatever narrative you’re attempting to push here.

- Doc

He did say he wasted time with Buddhism but I had a similar reaction as you to the question. If Buddhism was a waste, why frame the need as finding a middle way?

in my opinion, the paradigm of extremes or middle is flawed. But I lean into stoicism where the goal is to cultivate stoic virtues and excellence for it's own sake, with a constant aim of understanding and fulfilling ones duty. That can be investigated and performed with zero concern for ones relative position to others views which is, in my opinion again, a virtue in itself.

[Morley]

what you wrote was just a pastiche of alt-Right nonsense in order to push whatever narrative you’re attempting to push here.

True this.

Nobody can write this shite and be serious.