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

[Gadianton]

Free Ranger,

I've read your latest sermon but it's pretty thick in jargon and light on explanation. You keep referring to "wokeness" and "woke feminism" but without explaining what you mean by it.

In Mormonism I am not personally attacked as a...

But isn't your main point to attack liberal Mormons as "woke feminists"?

So going back to my initial post and keeping things on topic, what is ex/non-Mormonism offering me that's better than Mormonism?

Why should anyone offer you anything? The temperature on Venus is higher than the temperature on Pluto -- it's a brute fact. The Mormon Church holds to a false description of reality -- a trivially false description. That's just a brute fact. It doesn't help or hurt your life as it is. If you are looking for a community that values you as a person then that can come with any sales pitch and has little to do with command of brute facts about the world. In fact, communities built on deceit are the most likely venues for superficial acceptance. Those people are also looking for uncritical acceptance -- its if, a tacit agreement exists where each member is agreed to overlook the stupid ideas of other members in exchange for others to overlook their own stupid ideas. I'm sure you can find a place like that outside of Mormonism if you want.

[MG 2.0]

I didn't know you could put someone on ignore. How do you do that?

Drop down upper right. User control panel. Friends and foes tab.

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

Two questions:

1. Better than what?

2. Do you have a choice about the ‘as a man’ part?

Respectifully, I already answered your questions in my last comment. In other words, if you read carefully my last comment I answer your questions. And I suspect these are not good faith questions. But I hope I am mistaken on that, but you can understand my suspicion given the barrage of personal attacks against me.

I'm more interested in your opinion as to my honest questions and the points I made in my last commet and my initial post.

OK, I’ve had a chance to read through this more closely. Please consider that my comments below are made in good faith.

I’ve removed some portions from your post that may be redundant to other parts I’m responding to.
…

…the Woke feminist propagandist have essentially given the middle finger to fans of these superhero franchises, as they clearly had an agenda.
…
For anyone who disagrees with me, at least be open-minded and listen to what this female has to say, that is of course if the female voice is still respected. See https://youtube/Nqmd4iU8J3k

A consideration here would be that you are not the intended audience for these new stories. Some folks within the excluded audience will find fault with the structure of these stories, or/and make some debatable assumptions on intent.

Some, like the author of the video you’ve listed, draw arguably faulty conclusions that contradict their own comments made just moments earlier.

Historically, women have been relegated to just the sort of roles that she incredulously asks us to deny - a point not lost on folks who realize that our commentator needs to span 5 decades of cinema to find her two examples of a prominent cinematic woman warrior that defies being a bad stereotype prior to the supposed advent of whatever wokeism is supposed to represent.

And now, the tide shows signs of a bit of a turn. There will be folks that find this uncomfortable. But we are far, far, FAR from any sort of level that would even begin to upset the prevailing and familiar ‘traditional’ male-hero narrative. There’s no question about the supremacy of prevalence for the latter within media. So it’s quite interesting to see some folks point at the relatively minor occurrence of this claimed example of ‘wokeism’ with despair, whilst proclaiming that this signals the downfall of society.

… I now see that this dream of a Vulcan Zion was as much a fantasy as the Mormon Zion; but at least in the Mormons Zion ideal you had the ethic of bearing each other's burdens and esteeming your brother/sister as yourself.

It would be good to explore just what a ‘Zion’ means to you here, Vulcan or Mormon.

The fact is, we are homoreligious.

I used to think that leaving Mormonism and becoming an exMormon was leaving the mud of superstition and entering the clear blue waters of rationality.

That would depend on why you were remaining LDS in the first place. Were you a member because you believed the story, or because you needed the community?

In either case, the mechanics of how folks reason likely remain very much the same within one community, or within another that they left the first for. Chances are that they may be subject to the same quirks of rationality on either side of the fence that they choose, just as you have here with your example.

And in the early 2000s the exMormon community did seem to have the moral high ground, as many exMormons were a mix of Christian and atheists and Ethical Humanists and there was a general ethical standard and people were reasonable with their political views. During this time, I even had private conversations with John Dehlin, and at that time he was seeking power and status as a middle-way-Mormon and since his insider-group was Liberal Mormons (New Order Mormons) he once joined with others to try and get his group to turn on me, in the comment section of his podcast, by calling me an anti-Mormon (because I kept focusing on the empirical problems of Mormonism). That stung, as I had just had a private conversation with him the day before and we basically discussed his point of view of being a Cultural Mormon and treating it as mythology versus my Vulcan Mentality and focusing on the empiricism of Mormonism. We had a polite exchange and just agreed to disagree. But I felt that we understood each other and he respected my point of view. But he didn't, and he went on to treat me like the enemy and as if we never had that private cordial conversation. Others have commented on John D. Other ex-Mormons have pointed out other problems with John D. And while some ex-Mormons have a problem with him, other exmo's excuse his behaviors the same way McConkey Mormons excuse the problems among some LDS leaders. I bring it up only to point out that there are cultish leadership worship everywhere and it's not just in Mormonism.

Absolutely. Cult of personality being perhaps the greatest manifestation, with plenty of historical examples.

But now I see many ex-Mormons, like some on here, espousing the same cultish mentality I was fleeing when I left Mormonism. I find the same Iron Rod McConkey type of Mormon personality, only they have taken off that jersey and put on the Woke jersey. So I'm like, it really doesn't matter whether you're Mormon or an exMormon at this point in history (in my view).

You have the same human tendencies and personality types inside Mormonism and outside Mormonism.

There you go. You see it.

So going back to my initial post and keeping things on topic, what is ex/non-Mormonism offering me that's better than Mormonism?

This depends upon what you’re looking for, or what you need. Or, perhaps, your value set. What is the benefit you’re seeking?

In Mormonism I am not personally attacked as a bigot and a sexist and other disparaging dehumanizing labels.

Protection or shielding through numbers against viewpoints that you might perceive as irrational or threatening …

In Mormonism I'm given an identity, I am part of something larger than myself.

Protection or shielding through numbers for your sense of self…

There is a shared ethic and the ability to have more civility based on that shared ethic and a metaphysical belief in a soul.

Protection or shielding, and acceptance through community, for your proclaimed beliefs.

I have lurked on exmormon boards over the years and had conversations in person with atheistic Woke people and I've seen the worst kind of behavior coming from these folks. So as MG pointed out, to paraphrase, what are we/exmo's offering Free Ranger (me) that's a better alternative?

Some would claim that the alternative being offered might be ‘better’ - or different - beliefs, and/or values.

… people should be a lot more tolerant and kind toward those of different points of view and avoid the cultish name-calling and insulting. But that is not happening here among a certain bunch of allegedly enlightened ex-Mormons, who can quickly see the problems in Mormonism, but can't see the problems in their Wokeism.

This plays the same in reverse. So, where does that leave either of us?

Here's my point, if ex-Mormons and non-Mormons can be just as cultish and problematic as Mormons, as I've encountered, then why not go back to Mormonism?

Possibly because you haven’t considered one or another item that may not be at the top of your own list, but that might be at the top for others. 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.

I mean, besides the empirical issues and the arguments that it is unscientific, which don't matter to me as much as a religious humanist (and there is a growing number of Mormons anyway who hold nuanced views like on the historicity of the Book of Mormon), and I'm seeing it more as an ethical and empowering worldview and tribal culture; then is it just as good or better than any alternative I have encountered thus far? Yes I would have to make some sacrifices and trade-offs and accept some annoying things, …

I’m going to split this thought line, as it may be useful to note that you are acknowledging some subtle changes in acceptable belief practices that are just now starting to be tolerated … but that you also may be asking why these allowances weren’t used by exmos who took their path out of the religion many years before this newfound tolerance manifested.

… but I'm not finding any better alternative at this point. Is there one?

The Cult of Wokeism has infiltrated Atheism and the exMormon Community,

I’d be interested in your drilling down into however you’d like to define wokeism.

In the meantime, it would seem pretty evident that the world is filled with many fine folks who didn’t need Mormonism’s base plan to realize their potential as good people … and many examples of folks who grew up within true blue families that have myriad issues despite the assumed advantage of Mormonism. You’ve said as much in this post.

… obviously there are exceptions, not all ex-Mormons and atheists are buying into it; but the fact that it is a sweeping cult mentality phenomen makes me see that human beings are not rational; and so …

Noting a sweeping generality there … : D

… if human beings are clearly not rational and I'm not going to find pure rationality outside of Mormonism, then why not participate in my cultural LDS heritage like a Jew who becomes a nontheist but still values many or most aspects of his Jewish identity and culture?

That can work for some folks who first and foremost value the protection of that culture (and noting that protection is not the same as identity, here).

It may not work for some folks that don’t value that protection over, say, their fidelity to their own truths, about deity, religion, or whatever else is most important to them.

…
So if I don't care as much about the scientific validity of Mormonism anymore (as an agnostic religious humanist), and I'm more interested in the pragmatic, fraternal, existential, and mythological benefits of Mormonism, with it's cohesive structure in maintaining relationships and families: what better social alternative is there?

Rather, what is unique to the LDS church, therefore requiring membership within it, to achieve ‘cohesive structure’ in maintaining relationships and families?

Because at least in the Mormon Community I am respected as a man

Only as much as your immediate peers choose to issue respect based on title alone …

… and my ethnicity is not considered an Original Sin,

OK, but you’re saddled with a different type of Original Sin within the Christian narrative anyway that folks outside of it do not accept for themselves. So, there’s that. : )

… and it gives me a Meaning in Life and metaphysical life purpose and says we have a soul with intrinsic value and provides ethical accountability for being my best self as a man; while providing a masculine mythology that is inspiring.

As well, millions of people completely outside of religion - let alone Mormonism - have determined the same.

So again as my initial post asks, is being Mormon as a man , better in the midst of Wokeism and Secular Culture?

Better than what? Than being a man outside of Mormonism? If that’s the whole question, then the answer is dependent upon your perceived needs.

Now, would the question ‘answer’ the same for a woman?

Or for either, given something more specific?

[Free Ranger]

Free Ranger,

I've read your latest sermon but it's pretty thick in jargon and light on explanation. You keep referring to "wokeness" and "woke feminism" but without explaining what you mean by it.

In Mormonism I am not personally attacked as a...

But isn't your main point to attack liberal Mormons as "woke feminists"?

So going back to my initial post and keeping things on topic, what is ex/non-Mormonism offering me that's better than Mormonism?

Why should anyone offer you anything? The temperature on Venus is higher than the temperature on Pluto -- it's a brute fact. The Mormon Church holds to a false description of reality -- a trivially false description. That's just a brute fact. It doesn't help or hurt your life as it is. If you are looking for a community that values you as a person then that can come with any sales pitch and has little to do with command of brute facts about the world. In fact, communities built on deceit are the most likely venues for superficial acceptance. Those people are also looking for uncritical acceptance -- its if, a tacit agreement exists where each member is agreed to overlook the stupid ideas of other members in exchange for others to overlook their own stupid ideas. I'm sure you can find a place like that outside of Mormonism if you want.

Gadianton,

I'm glad you liked my sermon, please put your money in the plate.

I spent about 10 years thinking just like you and would have responded to me just as you are doing. So I don't fault you in any way but will respond a little forthright if you don't mind, as in a way I'm kind of talking to my old self. Yet hopefully respectfully, as I wouldn't want to hurt my own feelings.

In all due respect, I think you know what I mean by Wokeism as I described what I meant repeatedly throughout this thread.

But a good resource I would recommend is written by an African-American. See: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter.

I was not using the term Liberal Mormon as meaning LDS that are woke feminists. I was using the term to refer to theologically liberal Mormons like Terryl Givens and Patrick Mason. For example, in his recent book I recently read, Restoration: God's Call to the 21st-Century World, Patrick Mason expresses some very liberal points of view I actually agree with. But I would not call him a woke feminist. To me there's a difference between a Liberal and a Woke Leftist. Bill Maher for example is a Liberal. I'm also probably by most people's standards a Liberal with many Conservative points of view.

Why should anyone offer you anything? you ask. Well if I give Burger King $2 I expect them to offer me a Whopper in return.

I am not a hard core skeptic empiricist anymore so I don't care as much what the facts are regarding Mormonism, any more than I care what the facts are regarding the chemical reactions in my brain that makes me feel love towards someone. I'm more interested in the experience of love than discussing the brute facts of what's actually going on evolutionarily and within the synapses of my brain. Sometimes I just want to enjoy a dessert without knowing what the ingredients are. Likewise, I'm more interested in the existential value and meaning-making utility of Mormonism.

I'm more interested in the tribal value it provides. You see, I was influenced by Nietzsche atbone time and his romantic notion of the pursuit of philosophical truth while sacrificing the pull of the group, and so I spent time as a loner philosopher feeling superior to anyone who feels like they need a group or a tribe; and you know what I realized after some years of that, I was happier in a group. You know what else I found out when I looked into the science of human nature? Human Nature has made it so human beings tend to be happier in groups/clubs/tribes. Human beings who are part of a tribe are simply happier. This is not under dispute. The guy who played Kylo Ren, I don't feel like looking up his name so I guess that makes me sexist, says that when he left the military he lost that tribal camaraderie he used to have. We are simply tribal mammals. If you told that actor that the military is cultish and its deceptive and is not objectively true, I think he would just look you in the eye and say you've never been in combat have you? You've never felt that powerful connection with a brother in arms, have you?

I think all religions and governments for that matter are based on mythology, as Joseph Campbell put it; whose huge body of work I have read through and I recommend you do as well.

Let me ask you this, I'm going to assume you are an atheist or agnostic, if that's okay, do you believe in the Declaration of Independence, that we have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator? Or have you really studied Nietzsche, and other similar philosophers, and realize that Nietzsche made a good case that on atheism there is no such thing as a soul nor metaphysical Right or Wrong and therefore no objective human Rights. I would guess that you do believe in human Rights and you clearly care a lot about objective truth even though Nietzsche would really take you to town on that. But I would argue that you really have no objective grounds for defending human Rights on secular atheism/empiricism. I would argue that on some level you have a degree of supernatural thinking in these regards. I know I do.

Thus are you not also engaging in a deception by believing that Law Courts have the right to judge someone's guilt or innocence? Do you agree with philosophers like Daniel Dennett who basically argue that we should pretend that there is free will, and deceive ourselves about that, for the greater good? Or do you agree with Nietzsche who discusses this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, that no judge should judge as we are all biologically determined and have no soul or Self or free will.

Daniel Dennett said to paraphrase, it would be cruel to tell a kid on his deathbed that his religious beliefs are stupid and objectively empirically untrue. What about you, do you share Daniel Dennett opinion? If so why? We're all going to die so what's the difference between a kid and an adult? If we are all simply worm food and we don't have a soul and nothing matters why do you care so much about someone's supernatural beliefs or cultural belonging to a religious tribe?

I mentioned earlier that I have a Mormon Uncle who is taking care of my aunt who has a debilitating illness. Her body is slowly deteriorating and the one thing she has to look forward to is her Mormon beliefs of the afterlife. Would you really tell her she's being stupid and deceived?

We are all playing out a mythology I think. And you writing to me are deceiving yourself in thinking that you are a self speaking to a me as a self; but it's just a deception your brain plays on you as you are not really a person and nor am I, according to atheistic scientists and philosophers I have studied. The question is, which mythology is best for you and most others?

Humans have been tribal and forming mythologies to bind the community together for thousands of years; why are you superior to the thousands of human beings who came before you? I spent some time in a secular college fraternity and I remember that at one of our fraternity gatherings, one of my fraternity brothers stood up and talked about how proud he was to be a member of the fraternity; and that it gave him meaning and purpose and identity, and a sense of belonging and connection to the other brothers. It was a total deception you would put it, the process of joining the fraternity and learning the ideals and going through the ritual, was all a deception right? Yet it provided so much value to him. And to me for that matter at the time. You, I would presume, are on the tribal bandwagon that Mormonism is 100% bad because it's ultimately objectively untrue, and therefore you are criticizing me for even considering going back to it. But this just shows your own form of tribalism does it not? You have formed your own Us versus Them. We all do it. I'm not even condemning you for doing it. I'm only pointing out that your Us and my Them is just slightly different; but the tendency to think/behave that way is inherent in our tribal nature. I would argue that you are getting dopamine hits and a release of serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins by engaging on this Board. It fuels your tribal nature and gives you a powerful sense of identity, belonging and purpose. You feel like you're part of some grand meaningful purpose but on atheism it means nothing cosmically. You are deceiving yourself just as much as the Mormon.

I agree with you that people seek acceptance and will have stupid ideas but this will occur anywhere. There were tons of stupid ideas on this message board right that you disagree with, right? Yet you participate in this Board and probably form some friendships and acquaintances, right? So why are you forming relationships with ex-Mormons but saying you are superior to someone who's considering making friends with Mormons even if some Mormons hold stupid ideas.

The bottom line is I'm a religious humanist but I also still have some lingering nihilism, although I try to fight it because it just makes me seriously existentially depressed. But even if I were to entertain my inner nihilism, I'm still left with something I read in Nietzsche that has always stuck with me. If you're going to be an honest atheist then Nietzsche makes a good point that on atheism it really comes down to taste and tasting and preferences. You have your perspective, I have mine. Well, what if my taste in religion is simply different from yours? What if, for whatever reason, I subjectively enjoy Mormon culture more than clubs and bars. What if my attempt to be a Catholic or Protestant or Buddhist just always felt foreign; but Mormon Culture just always feels like home and I know the language and it just feels right and I have a taste for it? Are you going to tell me what I should and should not find tasteful? What if I simply like it? Not all of it but most of it.

What if I am like a non-theistic Jew who finds value in the culture. Would you challenge a cultural Jew this way, if not why not?

The cultural Jew has to accept certain cultural norms like belief in the abrahamic God among some at the ritual he attends, but he still find value in it, right? Are you saying that this cultural Jew should abandon his heritage? Why should he? Do you have anything better to offer the cultural Jew? What if the cultural Jew simply feels a sense of connection to his ancestors and when he participates in Jewish culture it gives him a sense of tribal belonging and existential vitality?

[Marcus]

It’s about time someone called ‘they’ out for who they are and their modus operandi. I’m not sure if this is a singular or plural pronoun. Very confusing. I just know that I’m to address Marcus/Lemmie as ‘they’. I should pull a Jordan Peterson and refuse to cave to this crap, but the fact is I don’t actually know if Marcus/Lemmie is a biological male or female. I’d hate to say he if they is a s he or she if they is a he.

wow you are really stressed by this, arent you? Are you SERIOUSLY unable to type a message online to someone unless you know their gender?

Crazy weird. At least in my book.

then catch up, old man.

They (Marcus/Lemmie) is making it a LOT harder than they need to. If I was ‘them’ I would want to be a bit more clear. ‘They’ just doesn’t quite do it.

what's hard? You're the one who can't talk to people unless you know their gender. That's weird, but you are retired, so .. ...although I'd pay money to see you walk into your HR dept before retiring and try to convince them how weird you think it is that you have to address someone by their preferred pronouns, and how you insist they TELL you their gender so YOU can decide what pronouns to use. Your retirement would have started MUCH sooner!

‘They’ don’t seem to have much of a moral compass, at least from what I’ve observed over time. They are somewhat of an enigma to me. It definitely isn’t worth the time/trouble trying to have a conversation with them (singular??). They are the master, or so they think, of word manipulation and setting up strawmen to attack.

How many times have you used this trick on people you don't like? Luckily, your assessment of "evil-ness" is irrelevant.

I’m tempted to go ahead and put them on ignore. I’ve wasted a LOT of time trying to get them to come around to no avail.

what? When did this happen? Apparently i missed it!!!!! Seriously, though, put me on ignore if i rattle you this much. I wouldn't want you to have a heart attack.

[Gadianton]

FR,

This message board primarily exists to allow open discussion of Mormonism, even if there is a quasi-community aspect for many here who have been around for a while. I'll admit that at this point, that's my main reason for sticking around as Mormonism as a topic has waned in importance for me. But the board is primarily to freely talk about Mormonism and stuff like that.

But this board isn't a microcosm of life in general. Devout Mormonism defines most of my family, and I have a good relationship with them all. I don't talk about Mormonism with them at all. I may listen to them, but I don't criticize. I have no interest in changing their minds about religion. I don't see much of a benefit for them even if I could pull it off, which would probably not be possible. Just like I don't challenge my family about the Church, I wouldn't challenge all the sick people you mentioned who need to believe in the Church's message to press on daily.

But, Mormonism is objectively false and if any of the aforementioned people find themselves on this forum then I guess the truce is off. You can't extrapolate from how I might interact with believers on this forum to the place I see for belief in the outside world.

Why should anyone offer you anything? you ask. Well if I give Burger King $2 I expect them to offer me a Whopper in return.

Sure, that's true for the Church. You gave the Church a hell of a lot more than 2$ and the Church defrauded you of all of it, as you will never reap their promises for your payments. You didn't give this board 2$, and even if you did donate back when we were getting the new version online, there was no promise to you in terms of community or friendship, or anything beyond being allowed to participate within the rules, which is the same benefit that people who didn't donate money also get.

Do you see the difference?

You've pulled a typical DCP by interjecting nihilism into the conversation and per that, I can't have an opinion on anything. At another time on another thread, we can talk about objective meaning and atheism and all of that, but it's too much of a detour here.

I'll need to go back and see if you explained wokeism, maybe you did. I do have right-wing friends who talk about movies being woke, and I get their drift. I think your suggestion that writers need to respect hard-and-fast narrative boundaries so that we can forever have movies like First Blood is absurd. By the same token, the boundaries that some liberals may have where every movie needs to reflect progressive values is also absurd. But I really don't see anything new here with so-called "wokeism". Movies have always needed to satisfy a wide audience in order to justify production costs. Blockbuster movies typically suck because they have to appeal to too many people to do anything interesting. Things like, Dukes of Hazard is bad because of the confederate flag -- well, that's an overshoot. But society will probably get over it in time.

As far as exploring different kinds of hero narratives, there should be few boundaries here because the point is for writers to come up with something new.

[Gadianton]

I can't turn on TV or watch movies now or go on social media without seeing men constantly being disparaged and maligned for being men. Instead of going after the minority of truly bad men, all men and all of masculinity is thrown under the bus. Men are under attack in this atmosphere. The Mormon Church has thus from my perspective become a lighthouse in the darkness. This is no longer about condemning bad man or making evil men good, it has become a feminist/Woke religion about attacking all men and replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, masculinity with universal femininity, so that we do indeed need an antidote to the Chaos.

Can you give me an example? I can't think of a single show, ever, that does what you are saying every movie today does. None of the movies I can think of that my right-wing friends consider woke "attack all men" "for being men" and universally replace patriarchy with matriarchy. I think you are exaggerating, and not just a little bit. But please, and example of a movie that does this?

And as far as the Church's perspective on "men", I guess there's nothing I recall from the Church that sheds any light on "masculinity". I mean, all the Book of Mormon heroes are caricatures; nothing interesting there.

[Free Ranger]

Respectifully, I already answered your questions in my last comment. In other words, if you read carefully my last comment I answer your questions. And I suspect these are not good faith questions. But I hope I am mistaken on that, but you can understand my suspicion given the barrage of personal attacks against me.

I'm more interested in your opinion as to my honest questions and the points I made in my last commet and my initial post.

OK, I’ve had a chance to read through this more closely. Please consider that my comments below are made in good faith.

I’ve removed some portions from your post that may be redundant to other parts I’m responding to.
…

…the Woke feminist propagandist have essentially given the middle finger to fans of these superhero franchises, as they clearly had an agenda.
…
For anyone who disagrees with me, at least be open-minded and listen to what this female has to say, that is of course if the female voice is still respected. See https://youtube/Nqmd4iU8J3k

A consideration here would be that you are not the intended audience for these new stories. Some folks within the excluded audience will find fault with the structure of these stories, or/and make some debatable assumptions on intent.

Some, like the author of the video you’ve listed, draw arguably faulty conclusions that contradict their own comments made just moments earlier.

Historically, women have been relegated to just the sort of roles that she incredulously asks us to deny - a point not lost on folks who realize that our commentator needs to span 5 decades of cinema to find her two examples of a prominent cinematic woman warrior that defies being a bad stereotype prior to the supposed advent of whatever wokeism is supposed to represent.

And now, the tide shows signs of a bit of a turn. There will be folks that find this uncomfortable. But we are far, far, FAR from any sort of level that would even begin to upset the prevailing and familiar ‘traditional’ male-hero narrative. There’s no question about the supremacy of prevalence for the latter within media. So it’s quite interesting to see some folks point at the relatively minor occurrence of this claimed example of ‘wokeism’ with despair, whilst proclaiming that this signals the downfall of society.

… I now see that this dream of a Vulcan Zion was as much a fantasy as the Mormon Zion; but at least in the Mormons Zion ideal you had the ethic of bearing each other's burdens and esteeming your brother/sister as yourself.

It would be good to explore just what a ‘Zion’ means to you here, Vulcan or Mormon.

The fact is, we are homoreligious.

I used to think that leaving Mormonism and becoming an exMormon was leaving the mud of superstition and entering the clear blue waters of rationality.

That would depend on why you were remaining LDS in the first place. Were you a member because you believed the story, or because you needed the community?

In either case, the mechanics of how folks reason likely remain very much the same within one community, or within another that they left the first for. Chances are that they may be subject to the same quirks of rationality on either side of the fence that they choose, just as you have here with your example.

And in the early 2000s the exMormon community did seem to have the moral high ground, as many exMormons were a mix of Christian and atheists and Ethical Humanists and there was a general ethical standard and people were reasonable with their political views. During this time, I even had private conversations with John Dehlin, and at that time he was seeking power and status as a middle-way-Mormon and since his insider-group was Liberal Mormons (New Order Mormons) he once joined with others to try and get his group to turn on me, in the comment section of his podcast, by calling me an anti-Mormon (because I kept focusing on the empirical problems of Mormonism). That stung, as I had just had a private conversation with him the day before and we basically discussed his point of view of being a Cultural Mormon and treating it as mythology versus my Vulcan Mentality and focusing on the empiricism of Mormonism. We had a polite exchange and just agreed to disagree. But I felt that we understood each other and he respected my point of view. But he didn't, and he went on to treat me like the enemy and as if we never had that private cordial conversation. Others have commented on John D. Other ex-Mormons have pointed out other problems with John D. And while some ex-Mormons have a problem with him, other exmo's excuse his behaviors the same way McConkey Mormons excuse the problems among some LDS leaders. I bring it up only to point out that there are cultish leadership worship everywhere and it's not just in Mormonism.

Absolutely. Cult of personality being perhaps the greatest manifestation, with plenty of historical examples.

But now I see many ex-Mormons, like some on here, espousing the same cultish mentality I was fleeing when I left Mormonism. I find the same Iron Rod McConkey type of Mormon personality, only they have taken off that jersey and put on the Woke jersey. So I'm like, it really doesn't matter whether you're Mormon or an exMormon at this point in history (in my view).

You have the same human tendencies and personality types inside Mormonism and outside Mormonism.

There you go. You see it.

So going back to my initial post and keeping things on topic, what is ex/non-Mormonism offering me that's better than Mormonism?

This depends upon what you’re looking for, or what you need. Or, perhaps, your value set. What is the benefit you’re seeking?

In Mormonism I am not personally attacked as a bigot and a sexist and other disparaging dehumanizing labels.

Protection or shielding through numbers against viewpoints that you might perceive as irrational or threatening …

In Mormonism I'm given an identity, I am part of something larger than myself.

Protection or shielding through numbers for your sense of self…

There is a shared ethic and the ability to have more civility based on that shared ethic and a metaphysical belief in a soul.

Protection or shielding, and acceptance through community, for your proclaimed beliefs.

I have lurked on exmormon boards over the years and had conversations in person with atheistic Woke people and I've seen the worst kind of behavior coming from these folks. So as MG pointed out, to paraphrase, what are we/exmo's offering Free Ranger (me) that's a better alternative?

Some would claim that the alternative being offered might be ‘better’ - or different - beliefs, and/or values.

… people should be a lot more tolerant and kind toward those of different points of view and avoid the cultish name-calling and insulting. But that is not happening here among a certain bunch of allegedly enlightened ex-Mormons, who can quickly see the problems in Mormonism, but can't see the problems in their Wokeism.

This plays the same in reverse. So, where does that leave either of us?

Here's my point, if ex-Mormons and non-Mormons can be just as cultish and problematic as Mormons, as I've encountered, then why not go back to Mormonism?

Possibly because you haven’t considered one or another item that may not be at the top of your own list, but that might be at the top for others. 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.

I mean, besides the empirical issues and the arguments that it is unscientific, which don't matter to me as much as a religious humanist (and there is a growing number of Mormons anyway who hold nuanced views like on the historicity of the Book of Mormon), and I'm seeing it more as an ethical and empowering worldview and tribal culture; then is it just as good or better than any alternative I have encountered thus far? Yes I would have to make some sacrifices and trade-offs and accept some annoying things, …

I’m going to split this thought line, as it may be useful to note that you are acknowledging some subtle changes in acceptable belief practices that are just now starting to be tolerated … but that you also may be asking why these allowances weren’t used by exmos who took their path out of the religion many years before this newfound tolerance manifested.

… but I'm not finding any better alternative at this point. Is there one?

The Cult of Wokeism has infiltrated Atheism and the exMormon Community,

I’d be interested in your drilling down into however you’d like to define wokeism.

In the meantime, it would seem pretty evident that the world is filled with many fine folks who didn’t need Mormonism’s base plan to realize their potential as good people … and many examples of folks who grew up within true blue families that have myriad issues despite the assumed advantage of Mormonism. You’ve said as much in this post.

… obviously there are exceptions, not all ex-Mormons and atheists are buying into it; but the fact that it is a sweeping cult mentality phenomen makes me see that human beings are not rational; and so …

Noting a sweeping generality there … : D

… if human beings are clearly not rational and I'm not going to find pure rationality outside of Mormonism, then why not participate in my cultural LDS heritage like a Jew who becomes a nontheist but still values many or most aspects of his Jewish identity and culture?

That can work for some folks who first and foremost value the protection of that culture (and noting that protection is not the same as identity, here).

It may not work for some folks that don’t value that protection over, say, their fidelity to their own truths, about deity, religion, or whatever else is most important to them.

…
So if I don't care as much about the scientific validity of Mormonism anymore (as an agnostic religious humanist), and I'm more interested in the pragmatic, fraternal, existential, and mythological benefits of Mormonism, with it's cohesive structure in maintaining relationships and families: what better social alternative is there?

Rather, what is unique to the LDS church, therefore requiring membership within it, to achieve ‘cohesive structure’ in maintaining relationships and families?

Because at least in the Mormon Community I am respected as a man

Only as much as your immediate peers choose to issue respect based on title alone …

… and my ethnicity is not considered an Original Sin,

OK, but you’re saddled with a different type of Original Sin within the Christian narrative anyway that folks outside of it do not accept for themselves. So, there’s that. : )

… and it gives me a Meaning in Life and metaphysical life purpose and says we have a soul with intrinsic value and provides ethical accountability for being my best self as a man; while providing a masculine mythology that is inspiring.

As well, millions of people completely outside of religion - let alone Mormonism - have determined the same.

So again as my initial post asks, is being Mormon as a man , better in the midst of Wokeism and Secular Culture?

Better than what? Than being a man outside of Mormonism? If that’s the whole question, then the answer is dependent upon your perceived needs.

Now, would the question ‘answer’ the same for a woman?

Or for either, given something more specific?

canpakes,

I open mindedly listened to your counter and absorbed it. I simply have to agree to disagree about the movies' analysis. To clarify, I do not think that Wokeism represents the downfall of society. As you know I am not a True Believer but a religious humanist. If you read this link it will give you a good idea of what I find valuable in the concept of the Mormon Zion: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zion

By Vulcan Zion I'm referring to the dream of many atheists in the early 2000s that reason and the scientific method would generate more peace on earth and goodwill toward men; while all religions would only continue to poison everything. I was a big fan of Christopher Hitchens at one time, especially for the fact that he was willing to give the middle finger and flex his intellectual muscles against anyone, even fellow atheists. It would have been pure entertainment to see him go toe to toe with the feminist woke mob; but I think even he would have been drowned out and he would have found himself exhausted in the muck of Machiavellian manipulation tactics. As he was dying he told a young girl who was a fan of his work, to not just focus on the intellectual stuff and not to forget about love.

When I was actively Mormon it was not because I needed Mormonism as you put it, in the sense of neediness but in the sense of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I would say that I found value and benefited by belonging to the Mormon Community which gave me an identity and purpose and camaraderie. I did believe in the general concepts, but to be honest I was never a True Believer. On my Mormon Mission, when it came time to show the flip chart of the angels visiting Joseph Smith to give him the priesthood, I always squirmed internally as I knew deep down I skeptically doubted that occurred. But I believed in, and still do, that it is over all a good organization and provides meaning and purpose and ethics. Just before my mission I read a pamphlet with a title like why Mormons are happier or why Mormons are happy. Reading the pamphlet I realized that it was true, that I was happier than some of my friends in high school who were not Mormon. Even as an atheist I made friends with an atheist woman and at that time I was very anti-Mormonism and the conversation of Mormonism came up and I would just go off and criticize it and she was just like she I wish I had a cultural identity and belonging like you had growing up being part of a community. I was like yeah but then I started to condemn the Mormon church; but it was clear to me that those who do not have that cultural connectivity like a cultural Jew has are missing out on something.

To answer your question, the benefit I'm seeking is existential meaning and tribal belonging and feeling good overall. I noticed during my years as an atheist and my shunning groupthink that I got my emotional highs by feeling intellectually superior but something was missing, I felt empty in the existential void. But after spending time reading Joseph Campbell and authors like Terryl Givens, and just beginning to entertain the idea of being a Cultural Mormon and even being open to the idea of an Indescribable Divinity, I noticed a distinct difference in my existential mood. Even acting as if I believed, even to a small degree, changed the chemistry of my brain and made my mood improve.

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 and you trying to prop yourself up as superior? Are you not yourself, on some level, protecting or shielding through numbers for your own sense of self? Or would you claim that you form your identity in a vacuum? 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. 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.

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

In the following I link I wrote an article where I provide screenshots of John Dehlin admitting he has not been able to replicate the communal Joy of Mormonism and has not been able to replace it with anything better. And then I point out the communal power of a feeling of belonging to one's Mormon Heritage, see:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P ... UEM1Ws/pub

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? 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.

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.

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. 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?

Regarding the issue of the Mormon Church being more open to nuances of belief such as in regards to the historicity of the Book of Mormon and you asking "why these allowances weren’t used by exmos who took their path out of the religion many years before this newfound tolerance manifested," my response is: that life itself is unfair and the harsh reality is that as tribal mammals there needs to be a perimeter and hedges/boundaries in order to solidify and tighten the bonding and identity of the in-group. If you've ever played sports you will know what I am talking about. It makes no rational sense to treat the other team as an other, but the more your team does that the greater the camaraderie and strengthening of the group identity; and the more powerful the feelings you have as a tribal human being belonging to your tribe. We may not like this. We may dream of stoic cosmopolitanism and wish for total peace on earth; but this is ultimately a fantasy when in reality we are apes with a hivemind.

The reality is that when I look back over my life as a man and contemplate when I have felt the most alive, the most exhilarated, the most positive emotions, it has been when I've been part of a group or team and thinking in terms of us versus them in a tribe. This is just the reality of being human. Now some people will deny this and with a degree of supernatural religious faith will pretend that we don't have a Reptilian Brain and natural impulsive territoriality (just like a dog barks at a fence as a person walks by), that is ingrained in our nature, to protect the perimeter of our tribe; especially as men. We may not like it and try to deceive ourselves out of this part of our human nature, but it doesn't change it as a brute fact. So every sports team, government, religion, etc., is going to have a perimeter and insider beliefs, its own Constitution, Articles of Faith, whatever.

I do not agree that there is a strong element of the concept of Original Sin in Mormonism. The second LDS Article of Faith makes it clear that Joseph Smith was rejecting that concept. Terryl Givens discusses this in detail and if you want I can paste some quotes.

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?

I would imagine that a woman would have a totally different way of looking at this. Given that I am not a woman and have a totally different biology, I'm not going to pretend to know how a woman would respond. I could only speculate. A woman with my line of thinking might be thinking along the lines of how mothers are valued more in Mormonism than in feminist Wokeism. In Protestantism and Catholicism you have a vaporous male father deity and male Jesus and nearly all the angels are male. But in Mormonism, she is elevated to the status of a god/goddess in the afterlife, and the male does not become a god except through unity with the female as a goddess; and in a recent book I saw at a Deseret Bookstore, Heavenly Mother is depicted alongside Heavenly Father; and she is being depicted more and more and revered more and more. Hence she might find herself drawn to the Mormon concept of deity more than any other alternative. If she doesn't like the idea of one day being forced into military combat in the name of equity, she might prefer the Mormon point of view that sees her as different biologically from a biological men. She might like the idea of being a mother and say working part time with hobbies more than working 80 hours a week to become a CEO; and doesn't like the pressure put on her to act like a man because there's allegedly no such a thing as gender. I am not a fan of Ayn Rand, but as a woman she greatly respected masculinity and saw her role as a woman was to uphold the heroic nature of the man. It's sexist is it not, to not to allow a woman to feel that way? Or perhaps she would feel a sense of feminine empowerment in a religion with a Divine Feminine and she can become a female god. 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.

Since I brought up Shawn McCcaney, I'm going to end by saying this reminds me of Shawn coming into conflict with the linear and logical Evangelical Fundamentalist and him eventually realizing that part of the reason for this conflict is because he points out that he is more of what he calls a Christian Artist (See Episode 385: Christian Artists at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsYZIkyA9ds ). 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. For example, I know that a lot of agnostics and atheists get into biblical scholarship and they end up finding themselves appreciating and valuing the artistry of the Gospel authors. I have experienced a similar appreciation, not just for the artistry of the Gospels but also with The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's overall artistic production. When you combine that with the fact that I have been influenced by Nietzsche to some degree, although I disagree with a lot of what he says when it comes to morality and ethics, yet like Nietzsche respect any man who exercises his willpower and achieves great things. So I have the same attitude regarding Joseph Smith. Even Faun Brodie, in chapter 6 of No Man Knows My History, points out that Joseph Smith was a dramatic artist whose creative talents were more emotional than intellectual and he was not a brute deceiver but a sincere dreamer. So as an artist myself, I have an appreciation for the creative dreamers and dramatic artists who produce religions, and theatrical plays, and movies, and paintings, etc.

I would argue that we are all today swimming in the artistic manifestation of the Christian writers; as they have largely painted the ethics through which we paint by numbers our ethical landscapes, and the number to patterns are already provided by our Christian ancestors.

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.

[Moksha]

Free Ranger,

I've read your latest sermon but it's pretty thick in jargon and light on explanation. You keep referring to "wokeness" and "woke feminism" but without explaining what you mean by it.

I suspect the "wokeists" are those who poke you when you innocently drift off to sleep in a Priesthood meeting. by the way, does Free Ranger know Atlantic Mike?

[Gadianton]

I looked up "woke feminism" and got directed to this youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqmd4iU8J3k

I imagine that this video makes the case about as good as anyone is going to make it. But it doesn't provide evidence for its most crucial criticisms. If Free Ranger has a better video to explain woke feminism I'm willing to view it.

The big budget movies this commentator refers to: "ghost busters", "Dr. Who", and "Batman"(?), among others, are destined to suck no matter who has the leading role because as I explained earlier, big budget movies are taking big risks if they don't remain shallow and accessible to the widest possible audience. Hollywood literally has nowhere to go at this point, remaking the same stories 27 times because originality is still a bigger risk.

1) The commentator argues that the new strain of woke feminist movies devalue men in entitled ways. For instance, in Dr. Who, the lead is expected to be a man by a crowd, but lo, is a woman, surprising everyone and says, "I've had an upgrade". In Batman, the lead insists the bat suit could be improved by being "fit to a woman".

objection: The commentator is reading way too much into this. Remakes of super-hero franchises are thick on self-parody, dumb jokes and sarcasm pacing the action of the film. this is par for that course. These characters are shallow women taking the place of shallow men and this is the same kind of self-parody that superhero revamps go heavy on. Lego Batman, for instance, caricatured Batman's shallow masculinity and I laughed harder than my step-kid through that movie. There are some challenges making this work for a female inversion of a superficial male character, but, for instance, Jessica Jones on Netflix pulled it off pretty well.

2) The commentator argues that the creators feel success is entitled to them simply for portraying women at the helm, but success should be earned, not handed out to entitled people. This was a charge made without any real evidence.

3) The commentator argues that woke feminism as a cultural phenomena expects that these movies are accepted and liked, and if not, that means the audience is sexist. Again, no evidence. I have a hard time picturing feminists making their stand behind the superficiality of Hollywood summer movies just because they have female leads.

An example of a recent female lead series that I think is excellent on Amazon is Hanna. Hanna somewhat takes on the traditional role of a male character with physical abilities and trained as an assassin, but the details of the role and scenarios are better modeled by female characters. Season two was exceptional, and one of the best indictments of Mormon culture I've ever seen (without the show knowing anything about Mormonism). Alias was also strong, and Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles was surprisingly good.

And also, contra Free Ranger, there is plenty of male centric action movies coming out. How many seasons is Bosch up to now? Red Notice broke the Tomatometer with audience likes but it really sucked, I made it about 20 minutes through. The name escapes me, but a very recent cop show on Amazon with a white male bodybuilder lead that was decent, I made it through 6 episodes I think. I would argue that there are in fact more traditional male hero movies coming out today than ever before. And that is because Netflix is partnering with film producers around the world, and Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Korea are all relatively traditional and conservative.