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

[Free Ranger]

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.

Yea, it's all good, I don't mind a little joshing. And I totally get where you are coming from. I'm going through a phase right now. Who knows what I will be saying and doing a year or even or a month from now.

[Free Ranger]

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

Really? Dude, I've voted Democrat for years and throughout this thread I repeatedly pointed out how part of me resonates with Joseph Smith's egalitarian notions; and pointed out that many Mormon scriptures endorse Social Democracy. I hate the far left and the far right. Yesterday I argued with my alpha male Republican father about why Trump should not be re-elected again because of what happened at the capital. Calling me an alt-right would be like me calling you a Nazi. It would just be a baseless attempt at an insult. Have the courage to deal with my arguments rather than mere name-calling please. I can change my mind, that's why I'm here; for a philosophical discussion where in the process I might reassess my points of view.

[Free Ranger]

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.

I'm honestly baffled why you are reacting this way. Help me understand. What is it that you seem to have taken offense to?

[Free Ranger]

Doctor CamNC4Me and Morley,

You guys are ex-Mormons, right? I presume one of the things that irritates you about Mormon culture is the gossiping and talking about people in the third person, "I hear he stopped wearing his garments. I hear that he votes Democrat. His arguments about the Book of Mormon being inspired fiction is just shite, he can't be serious. There is no middle way, you are either in the Church or you're out." And other things they sometimes say to those who don't toe the line of Republican McConkey Mormonism. But you guys are acting the same way toward me!

If you voice your opinion to a True Believing Mormon, they will just label you an anti-Mormon to stop the discussion. So you guys have slapped the alt-right label on me to try and stop the discussion. And just as many exMormons have gone through the frustration of loved ones calling them an anti-Mormon, I now have some fellow ex-Mormons calling me a label that is the exact opposite of who I am at my core. All because I dared to express points of view that does not perfectly align with theirs.

[Gadianton]

Free ranger,

I think you’ve partially answered your own question. Rocky was a bad ass who was all heart and could stick up for the little guy. He could be a bad ass without having to invent revelations from God in order to get with young girls and send his friends on missions to take their wives. I don’t think had Rocky become a sensitive new age guy that he would have been a better person.

The open question is how much does society owe the Alphas in terms of extra benefits for their unique contributions?

If an alpha institutes a fair social order or invents a cure for sars-cov-2, then how many 14 year olds is he allowed to have as compensation? Maybe the alpha doesn’t want to be like rocky.

One minor correction, Nietzsche preached nihilism, which isn’t moral relativism. Moral relativism attempts commonalities at some level — how much lines up — and you’re bound to the code of your place and time. So for instance, if some island tribe out there says marriage between a 30+ and 14 year old is okay, that doesn’t meant it’s okay for Smith in 19th century New England.

If you were to fantasize about being a part of such a tribe, it would be invalid because the tribe’s worldview wouldn’t understand the concept of the outward relation in the same way.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doctor CamNC4Me and Morley,

You guys are ex-Mormons, right? I presume one of the things that irritates you about Mormon culture is the gossiping and talking about people in the third person, "I hear he stopped wearing his garments. I hear that he votes Democrat. His arguments about the Book of Mormon being inspired fiction is just shite, he can't be serious. There is no middle way, you are either in the Church or you're out." And other things they sometimes say to those who don't toe the line of Republican McConkey Mormonism. But you guys are acting the same way toward me!

If you voice your opinion to a True Believing Mormon, they will just label you an anti-Mormon to stop the discussion. So you guys have slapped the alt-right label on me to try and stop the discussion. And just as many exMormons have gone through the frustration of loved ones calling them an anti-Mormon, I now have some fellow ex-Mormons calling me a label that is the exact opposite of who I am at my core. All because I dared to express points of view that does not perfectly align with theirs.

I have no idea who you are to your core, but what you’ve posted so far is straight up alt-Right culture nonsense. You’re also peddling a narrative that falls right in line with the faithful narrative, that Joseph Smith was the sole ‘author’ or ‘translator’ of the Book of Mormon. Both your theories about Joseph Smith being an alpha and being the sole whatever with regard to the Book of Mormon are faithful narratives in of themselves. You have to want to believe Joseph Smith is this “complex” man with a singular greatness (alphaness) to him.* You also give off strong MentalGymnast vibes, in that you claim to have extensively studied other religions and philosophies, but that falls apart fairly quickly as an attempt to establish some sort of philosophical credibility. Not last but least, you claim or seem to have read a LOT of fairly obscure Mormon apologetic material and your fragility conveniently turns to victimhood in a heartbeat.

- Doc

* Joseph Smith was the Richard McDonald to BY’s Ray Kroc. You really should be arguing that it was BY who was the alpha.

[canpakes]

I use to sit in condemnation of my alpha male relatives, some who were kickboxing and boxing champions, elite salesmen, rich, powerful. My own dad is an alpha male. Once I stopped moralizing their nature, stopped judging them, and instead admiring their Aristotelian/Nietzschean virtues I began to look at things differently. I stopped resenting them, demanding they be more docile, more "nice guyish," more "Christian." I realized it is just not in their nature. I then started to realize that they were inspirational. I remember the kickboxing champion relative showing me some fighting moves as a teenager, and another relative taking me gun shooting (he was a professional target shooting champion). Being around these high-status men was and is inspiring.
…
Just image going to war with …

You find certain kickboxers inspirational.

Some kids may find astronauts, doctors or scientists inspirational. Some of them won’t even be male.

I’m glad that the modern world manages to consider something other than only base, instinctual behaviors rooted solely in self-preservation when it decides to fix or improve some issue within the community.

‘Looking out for Number 1’ was likely Smith’s biggest problem, as opposed to being plastered with a 20th century pop-psychology label.

[huckelberry]

........ I would say I am arguing that from a purely naturalistic, atheist worldview, one can criticize Joseph Smith on modern-Christian morality, but on atheism it becomes more difficult. To "condemn" Smith, the atheist would need to criticize just about every highly masculine man that accomplished "great" things, as the drives that lead effective men to create or build amazing things, comes with traits that most men, the typical man, the "holy/good man" (the Nice Guy) does not have or does not express. Take any "great man" of history, that many men do admire for their accomplishments, and you will find much to criticize in their personal life. Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind. I like how Bill Burr puts it about Arnold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3g64swMf1M Note, that Burr is joking but sill makes a good point about great men and their greatness is not erased by their mistakes.

.....

Feel free, on atheism, to criticize and not like Smith, that is fine and consistent on atheism, but to "condemn" Smith whole cloth with an All or Nothing, Black and White, Negative Filter, is binary and is supernatural religious thinking. It smells to me of a theistic Christian worldview; as in thinking in terms of metaphysical Good or Evil, All Holy or All Devilish, it is binary. ...

I have developed a more nuanced view of Smith, as a complex individual. There are many things about Smith I don't like and will criticize and do not endorse, but I can say the same thing about Arnold and Thomas Jefferson and just about any man today or of history that was powerful and effective and accomplished amazing things. I mean who can deny Arnold's effect on the world, I think he motivated millions to get in shape and was part of what spawned gym culture I have been a part of my whole life. Yet we can also criticize Arnold as Burr does.
...............

. Rather than a chronic reductionist, deconstructing, debunking, and condemning stance, a reversal of my former TBM self that tended to "white wash" and defend Smith and all things LDS at all costs, I now seek to find value in the psychical "energy" of Smith's life and mythic work. How it can uplift and inspire? What lessons can it provide?

Free Ranger, I find your take on Christian understanding of good and evil problematic. It sounds more Manichean or gnostic than standard Christian. I understand the main line of Christian moral thinking is that all things come from God and all things are good. People however can choose inferior or more limited goods over the more important one and as a result increase chaos and injury to others. There is no black white good and evil nature or forces in Christian understanding like you appear to refer to above and elsewhere.

I realize you are not the first person to suggest such a division, I am not sure where it is coming from.There are times when People here have said they discovered upon stopping belief in the church they realized that there was no such thing as sin. I always found that bizarre as it is so clear that the world is full of human injury. But I realize that if one is thinking of sin as some separate force or state of being then It can be seen as not a real thing.Is this like a Mormon thing? Well I can see it is a thought pattern which might well crop up in a variety of places and times.

This comment is background to why I find your characterization of Christian milk toast nice guy unacceptable. As Lem pointed out there is a wide variety of male possibilities. I have no inclination to choose between Arnold and church mouse.

I think your general move to a more nuanced take on Mr Smith is more healthy than obsessed condemnation. It sounds better to learn from him. I think people are hearing you louder as projecting Ayn Rand more than other possibilities. that may just be perception.( I choose that writer as it has been over fifty years since I read Thus Spake Zarathrustra and cannot discuss any detail there)

[Free Ranger]

I'm just going to respond to everyone on this thread cuz there's too many attacking me at once.

At this point I have about 6 people misrepresenting me and pretty much ganging up on me. This does not make me feel welcome. And no, that has nothing to do with my "fragility." The strongest dude is not going to want to join a group that doesn't welcome him in. Every masculine culture, like the ancient Hebrews had a custom of being hospitable to the newcomers. I wish more people chimed in and made me feel more welcome. But it is clear that I am being indirectly effectively voted off the thread by your behavior. And that's fine. I will be leaving.

What really baffles me is comments like this from Doctor CamNC4Me saying:

You’re also peddling a narrative that falls right in line with the faithful narrative, that Joseph Smith was the sole ‘author’ or ‘translator’ of the Book of Mormon.

In all due respect, you have not done your homework. Dan Vogel is an exMormon atheist and he is a strong proponent of Joseph Smith as the sole author of The Book of Mormon. In fact, I bet if you search this message board you may even find Dan Vogel arguing that position. One of the first books I read when questioning Mormonism was Sandra and Gerald Tanner's Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. The "queen" (if you will) of Anti-Mormonism, the great Sandra Tanner believes that Joseph Smith is the sole author of The Book of Mormon. Are you accusing them of "peddling a narrative that falls right in line with the LDS faithful narrative"?

Those of you attacking me, are acting like a mirror reflection of the TBM by saying that just because I bring up some books written by an LDS apologist, that I am a TBM myself. That is cultish behavior on your part. I freaking referenced multiple books and sources, mostly by those who are anti-Mormonism, the kind of books that if I mentioned them on an apologetic TBM board would get me censored.

I am simply presenting a nuanced perspective which apparently isn't allowed. If you're not with the binary frame most of you are displaying then you're not one of us, is the vibe I am getting which I consider cultish. Keep in mind that many secular writers (neverMormons), who have examined Joseph Smith have had no problem thinking that Joseph Smith is “complex” with a "greatness" about him. I could quote you multiple sources, the most notable being Harold Bloom who said Smith was a "religious genius." But if I say it, and it doesn't align with your, All or Nothing, Black and White, Either-Or Binary thinking, and so I must be some kind of TBM.

I see a lot of putting words in my mouth and projecting ideas into my head that are not there. All I have said is that on atheism (or metaphysical naturalism), where there is no Free Will and we are biologically determined, it is difficult to "condemn" Joseph Smith. I then made it clear that we can criticize him and said we should, and pointed out the stupidity of his actions and how it didn't fit a modern American Christian civil behavior code, and that I have my Christian humanist moments. Go back and carefully read all of what I said.

Here's what's going on, I said some things and you guys are reacting as the mirror reflection of a TBM's binary stance. If someone gives a nuanced and complex point of view, the binary type TBM will immediately ignore the overall argument of the Mormon questioner and label them an anti-Mormon or in some way unworthy morally and that's why their asking questions. If the questioning-Mormon then says you're misrepresenting me and slandering me, "I'm not anti-Mormon." "I'm not morally unworthy as you are pigeonholing me." "I love Mormons. My family members are Mormon." The TBM will double down and keep accusing the questioner of being an unworthy anti-Mormon until they tow the line or are shamed into leaving. In this way free speech and philosophical discourse about what the questioner is wanting to discuss and question cannot be discussed further. It is a cultish thought stopping technique. Can you see that you guys are doing something very similar?

Since you guys have politicized this which I did not intend, as I've made it clear multiple times I'm interested in a philosophical discussion, I'm not saying anything different than what a Liberal who votes Democrat might say, like like Joe Rogan (yes he's actually a Liberal) or Bill Maher would say. Many liberals now recognize a spectrum from the extreme far-left to the extreme far-right, and consider themselves in the middle. Many Liberals have a problem with what they consider far-left craziness. I am not interested in discussing politics but you guys are clearly judging me through a political lens with the labels and terminologies and descriptions you are falsely accusing me of. I did not even want to discuss politics but you guys are derailing the thread.

Everything that I've been saying also fits the philosophies one finds in many types of rap music. Do you think that rap music composed by certain African-Americans (who vote Democrat) -- who say the same kinds of things I am saying in their music -- are members of the alt-right? What I've been saying is not much different than what Tupac and Eazy-E have said in their rap music. 50 Cent said he and many other rappers have been influenced by Robert Greene'sbook, 48 Laws of Power; Green says many of the things I've been saying in regards to the reality of human behavior. In fact, Robert Green co-authored a book with 50 Cent titled The 50th Law. That book's philosophy is not much different than the philosophy I am simply questioning, philosophically examining, not even advocating. Are you guys equally willing to slander and accuse these people in the rap community of being alt-right? If not then you're being hypocritical.

Upon reflection, looking back it is clear to me that the number one reason I officially resigned from the Mormon Church, was I could not freely speak my mind without being ganged up on and labeled by TBMs and mopologists. If I wanted to be able to say something like, "Do we really need to believe that Moses literally parted the Red Sea? Can't it be metaphorical?" I'd immediately be, in one way or another, censored and basically made to feel I'm not fitting into the status quo mold. I resigned because it was clear that I was not allowed to think outside the narrow box of McConkie Mormonism; and could not express my thoughts or question or philosophize and had to keep my mouth shut and could not speak freely without being ganged up on and called names like anti-Mormon. I was not given free speech. I am feeling the exact same Vibe on this thread by you guys. The last place I would expect to see this kind of behavior would be on an exMormon Message Board. WTF.

The irony is you guys attacking me are not living up to your own board's ideals, one of which is to make people feel welcome. As I edit this at the top of the screen is the site's logo that says "all welcome!"; especially, I presume, newcomers such as myself.

You guys clearly believe in following ethical codes of conduct and yet this board's rules of conduct says:

UNIVERSAL RULES:
Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome.* Therefore, do not "de-invite" anyone or suggest that they go elsewhere. …

You guys are effectively de-inviting me and telling me to go elsewhere by forming a buzzing mob around me and stinging me with insults and slander and false accusations and straw man misrepresentations. You're not making me feel like every opinion is welcome and everyone is welcome which are the rules of this board. You are slandering me as some kind of "Mormon apologist" doing mental gymnastics to defend the Mormon church. Which is an utter lie and misrepresentation. I have said repeatedly I resigned my flipping membership.

UNIVERSAL RULES:
4. Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.

You guys are derailing the thread which asked a biological and anthropological question. You guys inserted political commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post; turning this into a an imagined political crusade of Us (the far-left mob) attacking me an evil alt-right dude. This not only is derailing the initial post but you are lying about me when I've said I'm not alt-right.

UNIVERSAL RULES:
9. Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed …

At this point I feel harassed and ganged up on. And accusing someone of being alt-right in today's political climate could even be considered a threat. No matter how much I explain I'm not part of the alt-right and in fact I hate the alt-right and everything they represent, you guys continue to slander me.

Doctor CamNC4Me said, "I have no idea who you are to your core," then goes on to pretend that he knows who I am at my core and slanders me. In other words, I don't exist as a person at this point. I represent a strawman image of the most extreme far-right person you guys have imagined in your head and are seeking to take a bat to that pinata.

Throughout this thread I've made it clear who I am at my core and here it is in bullet points:

> I was shy and introverted in Middle School. I had a hard time dealing with the alpha males and bullies ganging up on me. Being introverted and more in my head I was slow to recognize that if you show weakness you become a target.

> Lifting weights and boxing and Mormon social activities in my youth helped me develop an extroverted persona and I learned to stand up for myself against and bullies and raise my social status.

> I served a Mormon mission which further helped me overcome my shyness and introversion.

> I eventually resigned from the Mormon church because I was not allowed to speak my mind (no free speech) and many other reasons for my resignation, one of which was in protest of the Seed of Cain doctrine, which was later repudiated as mere folklore in a church essay in 2013.

> After resigning, I went through an existential crisis and latched onto Buddhism and Liberal Christianity for a time. During this time I morally judged the more masculine and conservative members of my family wishing them to be more socialistic and liberal and Buddhistic and peaceably Christian which was my default nature. The philosophical energy of Buddhism and Liberal Christianity demotivated me from taking more action in life which is necessary for an introvert such as myself to do in order to become stronger and happier.

> I began reading Nietzsche and Stoicism and Aristotle and learned that there are virtues (and vices) beyond the ideals of Buddhism and Christianity's metaphysical Holy vs. Unholy; and so I began to think more philosophically about the alpha male and high testosterone males in general, and rather than metaphysically "demonizing" them I began to see that they had a place in Nature. This helped me not feel like a victim and overcome resentment I had toward them. For example, I read books by sociologists, psychologists, and biologists that point out that men sometimes "josh" each other as an unconscious evolutionary strategy to test the resilience of the person. What the Italians refer to as "busting your balls." But I also learned that mob behavior and ganging up on someone is caused by the most primitive baser instincts and a shutting off of the higher brain functions, which as we've seen in history has led to great harm to individuals. Including burning women at the stake.

As George Carlin once said:

“I love people as I meet them one by one. People are just wonderful as individuals. You see the whole universe in their eyes if you look carefully. But as soon as they begin to group, as soon as they begin to clot, when there are five of them or ten or even groups of smallest two, they begin to change, they sacrifice the beauty of the individual for the sake of the group.”

> I have voted Democrat as far as I can remember. In fact I don't think I've ever voted for a Republican. I was appalled at what happened at the Capitol. Watching videos of The Proud Boys and the alt-right taking part in what led to the riot on the Capitol was disgusting to me.

> I listen to all kinds of political commentary, mostly just 5 to 10 minute Clips here and there, from Bill Maher to TYT to clips of Joe Rogan who actually is liberal and voted for Bernie Sanders; he just has a hyper-masculinity and enjoys combat sports.

> I'm the kind of person who believes in caring for the unfortunate and building them up. I believe in Universal Health Care and a lot of other liberal policies and principles. I also believe that a person can raise their social status through the right motivation, like therapy and coaching and their life philosophy; and in the end they will be healthier and happier and better providers and protectors of their loved ones by becoming stronger men in general.

Okay that is the gist of the core of who I am and my journey. Somebody who is not on the extreme left or right of any position whether philosophically, religiously, or politically. I like to have philosophical discussions and a mature back and forth, a give and take, and through such philosophical discussions sometimes you make a point very strongly and the other person gives counterpoints, and maybe you change your mind, maybe you don't. That is what philosophizing is all about.

I place Great Value in having a mature and sober philosophical dialogue without people being ganged up on or bullied or slandered. I do not appreciate effectively being mob attacked and the ideals and rules of this board essentially spit on. As I believe in the ideals and the rules of this board, or else I would not have begun discussing certain ideas here for feedback and reflection and further questioning and dialogue. Here are more rules of the board and how you guys have been breaking them with impunity:

RULES FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FORUM AND THE SPIRIT PARADISE FORUM:

2. No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed. This includes personal attacks against a person's family members.

canpakes said:
You find certain kickboxers inspirational.

Some kids may find astronauts, doctors or scientists inspirational. Some of them won’t even be male.

I’m glad that the modern world manages to consider something other than only base, instinctual behaviors rooted solely in self-preservation when it decides to fix or improve some issue within the community.

I was very clear in stating that the kickboxer I mentioned was a relative of mine. A family member. Making fun of me finding inspiration in my kickboxer family member for his commendable discipline in his training and his bravery to get in the ring, and teaching me some self-defense moves to be a greater protector and provider of my loved ones, is not only a personal attack on me but a personal attack on my kickboxing family member as the rules also say no "personal attacks against a person's family members." Shame on you for mocking my family.

Why aren't you guys following your own rules of your board? Do you not respect the person who wrote the rules? Do you not respect the rules themselves? Without rules there is chaos.

Calling me alt-right is a personal attack. That label springs to mind tiki torches and far-right racists. Its the kind of label that can destroy people's lives. I am not racist. I freaking resigned in part because of the LDS church's doctrine of the Seed of Cain ( which they finally repudiated in 2013). The fact that you would so readily lob that label at me is rather cruel and breaks the rules of this board. Why is this allowed?

When I was leaving the LDS church I dealt with Louis Midgley and him misrepresenting me and slandering me and personally attacking me. I never thought I would receive such similar behavior by ex-Mormons.

This is how you make people feel welcome on this message board. The homepage of the website says all are welcome, but apparently not.

Your behavior reminds me of the uppity behavior of some TV anchors who de-humanized the liberal Russell Brand. See https://youtu.be/mDCtFTyw6fI
In that clip they speak of him in the third person, say things like I can't understand him as if he talks nonsense and basically try to disrespect him so they can feel morally superior to him. It was not on a message board and they were not slandering him so he could deal with them face-to-face. But on this message board thread I am subject to a faceless mob.

You guys are clearly acting aggressive and manipulative, which you accuse Joseph Smith of doing. Why the double standard?

I mean what gives? Is this how message boards operate, only allow one point of view and those who deviate, attempt to gang up on them and attempt to bully? I've made it clear throughout this thread I am just philosophizing and questioning ideas. I've had the courage to be vulnerable and say I have a sensitive side, and point out that I went through a shy and introversion stage. You guys have decided to criticize me for talking about philosophical ideas and turn around and sought to bully me even after I have repeatedly mentioned that I do have a sensitive side. You guys have said things like, if you can't take the mob bullying and being ganged up on, then you are fragile. This is what "Alpha Male Bullies" do, they pick on someone to feel powerful and then say things like, "Oh, what are you going to cry?" I know this behavior very well because when I was shy and introverted in Middle School I was bullied, which I mentioned many times throughout this thread. Since then I've learned a lot about the personality of the bully. So I've learned how to deal with bullies throughout my life, but I'm new to message boards and dealing with a faceless mob; and so I don't think it's possible for one to effectively deal with bullies like you can in real life.

What I'm sensing is that in the digital format where a lack of face-to-face interaction takes place, there is a heightened level of groupthink leading to cruelty and dehumanizing the person you disagree with. I think that's what you guys are doing to me and yet ironically you criticize Joseph Smith for what you would have to say, if your honest, is similar behavior on your part. High testosterone males often lack empathy and you guys are acting like that as the mob mentality diminishes the individual's empathy circuits. The computer screen also makes it easier to dehumanize me.

I'm sensing a lot of the pot calling the kettle black here, you guys condemn Smith for displaying dominance and yet you guys are acting the exact same way. Except instead of dominating on the sports field, or in business, etc., in this case you guys are attempting to stake your claim on this message board thread. All this is doing is making my point I've made throughout this thread. The point being human nature is human nature and on atheism it's difficult to judge it as metaphysically "evil." But I also said you can say Joseph Smith's misbehavior was stupid or that was a dick move. Well I think you guys are making dick moves just like Joseph Smith.

So what's up! The homepage of this website says all are welcome. So am I welcome to express my opinions or what?! Clearly not. I can't do so without dealing with a mob and being slandered.

Here's my theory fellas. Those who have a big problem with alpha male high testosterone types like a Joseph Smith, etc., who try to come off as holier-than-thou from a place of moral superiority are often just repressing their own primal instincts. Because they repress their primal instincts most of the time, it gets bottled up and so when they get an opportunity to unleash it, as part of a mob, it bubbles up to the surface like a volcano exploding. So that when given a chance in a safe environment, like over a computer screen or blending in with the mob, their true colors come out and they can be even more cruel than the cruelest of the alpha males. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong and show some civility and empathy and understanding, attributes that you clearly expect from others in how they treat you as individuals. Prove me wrong by not continuing to personally attack me after I leave this thread. Instead apologize.

As for myself I have too much integrity to ever cowardly gang up on anyone. I never have and I never will. I was once a member of an atheist meetup group and met in person with them and one time on their message board a new person was being ganged up on and I told the crowd, "Hey, wait a minute, let's hear this guy out before jumping to conclusions. Let's get to know him a little bit first. Let's get to know his story. Let's ask him some questions to make sure we are not putting words in his mouth." I knew that that was a real human being behind that computer screen. I was not going to join a mob or gang up on someone and try to feel morally superior to them.

Only a psychopath or sociopath is not going to react negatively and become in some ways psychologically wounded by being ganged up on.

If I disagree with someone I'm not going to just jump to name-calling and slander before allowing the person to further clarify their point of view and ask more questions and make sure I really understand what they're saying. You guys are real quick to judge. Like a Mormon Bishop slamming the metaphorical gavel, "sinner!" "unworthy!" "Undoctrinal!" "APOSTATE!" You guys are just a mirror reflection of that.

It's clear to me that I am just not welcome on this thread. No one chimed in who might appreciate my philosophizing and questioning an alternative point of view.

I'm not a narcissist so I'm not going to stay where I'm not welcome.

Finally, what if I called you Morley a Proud Boy and you Doctor CamNC4Me a Trumper. Then when you said you are not that and explained why, I continued to say that you Morley are a Proud Boy and you CamNC4Me are a Trumper, over and over again. And I began lying about you and said you have posters of Trump all over your room. And other people joined in saying, "Yeah, he's a total Trumper!" And multiple people started ganging up on you calling you CamNC4Me a Trumper and you Morley are a Proud Boy. Then a mob mentality took over. And no matter how false those claims are, others kept pigeonholing you and giving you those labels. I would imagine you guys would not like it. So the fact that you guys are all too ready to do it to me is once again making my arguments for me throughout this thread in regards to human nature from an anthropological and biological perspective.

I mean yes I try to be antifragile but I do have my emotionally fragile moments yes, what you guys have been arguing is a good thing, right? My goal in life is not to be a cold-hearted psychopath, never said that. So am I not supposed to express some emotional fragility? The whole position you guys are taking is that we should have sensitivity and compassion for others and call out wrong behavior when we see it, right? Yet I am being falsely accused and slandered and you guys have zero compassion and are expressing degrees of cruelty and have no problem dehumanizing me and misrepresenting my character. This tells me that nature is what it is and part of what we see in nature is the mob mentality among humans: which has led people to burn witches at the stake and kill atheists and agnostics in the name of religion. You guys are exhibiting that mentality, a mob-religious mentality of which I want no part of.

I admitted that I have a sensitive side. I said it multiple times. I made it clear I am merely philosophizing. If you go back and read this thread you will see that I brought up my sensitive side multiple times but you guys do not care. You guys are acting like an Alpha Mob. I dealt with bullies in Middle School and know the type very well. I know how to deal with them in real life but on a message board it's pretty much Mob Rules. Telling me I'm being fragile is totally hypocritical. You guys know damn well that if you went on a Mormon apologetics board and everyone started ganging up on you, you wouldn't like it. You would have all kinds of things to say about those Mormon apologists. Yet you are exhibiting the same kind of behavior.

What I posted is not alt-right but is simply what you will find discussed among philosophers on a University campus or what you will find in all self-improvement literature and motivational speakers and what coaches might say before a football game, like Al Pacino playing the role of a coach and motivating his team in the following clip: https://youtu.be/_b7bgtu2O4E

You are taking somebody's "philosophical discussion" about Mormonism and projecting onto it political far-right political ideology. You guys are obviously on the far-left of the political spectrum, which is fine. But you don't have the right to derail the thread and personally attack me and my family members and break other board rules.

All I can say is, if you go to the front of your website it says *all are welcome.* So that is either a lie or you guys are poorly representing the standards of the board. Either way, at this point I'm not going to be slandered and misrepresented anymore. I'm leaving this board/thread just like I resigned from the Mormon church. I have not been given free speech and allowed to speak freely. Rather than discuss and debate you want to control the narrative, just like the Mormon leaders do. So I won't be posting anymore so those of you who wanted to hear my point of view you're not going to hear it anymore. You should have spoken up sooner.

I would request that you guys don't act caddy and further gossip and misrepresent me and slander me further after I leave and respond no more. Because after this post I am gone. I will not respond to any comments directed at me coming from people who are it appears are impervious to changing their mind; no matter what I say or do at this point I will be maligned and attacked and slandered. So I will not be responding to anything else.

I know it's a lot to ask to just respect my leaving and not further slander me, and probably won't happen, but going to extend it anyway. I will not respond to anything that you guys further say as I predict it will just be more bullying, slander, attack of my character, strawmen misrepresentations, and saying I wasn't man enough to stay here and take the bullying; like a bully saying "What are you going to cry."

In real life I could deal take each of you aside one-on-one and talk it out face to face. But on a computer screen I don't have many options except to walk away from the mob. I'm not going to engage in an adolescent Tit for Tat insult match, which is a waste of my time and energy. I wanted philosophical discussion not to fight with a faceless mob. I'm gone.

Please do not talk about me behind my back any further. I will not be responding to any more posts directed at me or about me. Goodbye.

P.S.

Before I leave I want to compliment honorentheos, for not being part of the mob mentality. He was mostly polite and gave me feedback and food for thought. He suggested some alternative points of view and we had a friendly joshing without negative labels and slander, and in fact he gave me something to think about and I even went on to begin listening to an author he suggested. And who knows maybe that author will changed my mind about some things. I can't remember if there were others on this thread who were equally civil but to those who were, Thank you.

P.S. And huckelberry thanks for saying:

I think your general move to a more nuanced take on Mr Smith is more healthy than obsessed condemnation. It sounds better to learn from him. I think people are hearing you louder as projecting Ayn Rand more than other possibilities. that may just be perception

You are right that it is a false perception on their part. Thank you for getting what I've been basically saying in summary form.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

-_-