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

[Morley]

Free Ranger, the more I read of you, the more I think you've been listening to too much Tom Leykis.

[Free Ranger]

I read what you wrote a couple of times and each time it made me giggle. I see what you're trying to do. It reminds me of the time after college I tried substitute teaching for a brief stint; high school students love to goad the teacher into such ongoing interactions by asking the kind of questions you ask.

Gabriel, buddy, you seem to be taking this way too personal. It is just philosophizing on a computer screen. I have no idea why you are taking this so personally when I have not made it personal with you. But you are trying very hard to make it personal toward me. Again why the anger and hostility? If you won't answer that question then I probably will stop responding to you.

If you attempt to goad me further by referencing my Viking ancestry again, and my stature, implying "I'm not man enough to engage you further," or something like that (as you've already attempted); I would simply reply I have no interest in beating my chest against a computer screen. In a digital format true machismo, if that is what your after, will come across through intellectual discussion. That is going to be how I express my masculinity not a never-ending tit-for-tat of words which I would find childish on my part to engage in further.

I would much rather go out and "flex my muscles" in the weight room or the boxing ring or making money for my family. This is a recreational activity for me. I owe you nothing Gabrieal, not a single more ounce of my time if I don't feel like it. I engaged this public forum to possibly change my mind and stimulate thought for further reflection on my part. I'm not interested in acting macho with you like two rams butting heads, it's not making me money and not stimulating thought.

I find it interesting that you seem to be trying to poke holes in my contention that nature produces people like Joseph Smith, and so on atheism he was just a product of nature. In the process, in this thread I argued that Alpha Males are products of nature. I suspect you have a problem with saying Joseph Smith's "alphaness" was a product of nature. I would guess that you personally condemn such Alpha Behavior. Yet your responses toward me display alpha male aggressive traits. You seem to be wanting to to use verbal power plays to get the upper hand: using sarcasm, snarkiness and indirect insults. If you had come at it from a more polite and "Christian" (i.e. civil) demeanor, then your seeming concern for people with down syndrome would make more sense. To be clear, I never said anything about down syndrome. The fact that your own nature is driving you toward anger and hostility and attempting to one-up me is making my argument for me. What if I was autistic? If I was, would your behavior be appropriate?

Again you are taking things way too personal in your responses. I'm simply having a philosophical discussion. The theme of which is how can we as atheists and agnostics have moral outrage and moral indignation against Smith when he is a product of Nature; and your own behavior toward me Gabriel is a product of nature. How can you condemn Joseph Smith when you are revealing similar characteristic traits?

You also bring up the history of Vikings and pillaging. Are you aware that many Caucasian people today are the product of Viking raids and sex with Vikings?

I seem to have really got under your skin by asking you to live up to your own apparent claims that you are superior in knowledge to me on the subject, so you tell me the answer to your own question.

On Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:42 pm, I already answered your question:



Then on Sunday, Octb31, I followed up your refusal to answer my question by saying:



You have not answered my questions Gabriel; and in fact you have turned around and made my overall argument for me. You are seeking territory, rank and power. We are engaged in a stand-off, you asked me an irrelevant question (in my view) and I gave you a response. Asked and answered, Gabriel.

At this point I predict you're going to up the ante and make more snarky comments and attempt to insult me further. Your ego is clearly involved, and you're angry and hostile for no good reason. I have had the courage to express my thoughts and even divulge personal information and backed up my thoughts with arguments; you seem to be the one who is hiding. Hiding behind your anger and not answering my questions. I don't know anything about you.

Again, you are making my arguments for me. You won't answer my questions because I think you want to feel superior in knowledge, just like Joseph Smith sought to do (as we see in the King Follett Discourse as he tries to one-up the scholars of his day by claiming a superior knowledge of Hebrew).

Are you are afraid to answer your own question because it might reveal you are not superior in knowledge? Again, your communication in this thread makes my arguments for me to a large degree.

I'm going to presume you are an atheist, as that was the audience I was primarily addressing in the start of this thread. I pointed out that, on atheism it is difficult to have moral outrage against Joseph Smith as a product of nature.

You seem to make moral judgements against Joseph Smith for having alpha male traits and yet you yourself are exhibiting similar alpha male traits: being aggressive, one upping me, insulting me, goading me, and manipulating me into further interaction. While I have done nothing to instigate this and have said nothing to you personally. Are you aware of this behavior of yours?

I would venture to say that you would argue that Joseph Smith was a big jerk who was aggressive and manipulative with people, and insulted people, etc., and that was wrong, right Gabriel? Do you get where I'm going with this? You're acting like the person I presume you have condemned with moral outrage, while you yourself (with your own nature) are acting similar?

For example, you bring up the Happiness Letter, mocking my ancestry saying, "Your mighty forbears did not waste their time writing extravagant 'Happiness Letters' ..." In the Happiness Letter, Joseph Smith is being an aggressive male seeking sex and trying to goad Nancy into the response he wants, and manipulates her in his writings. And your behavior is likewise an aggressive male seeking superiority over another male and trying to goad him into a response and using manipulative tactics to do so. Yet, you probably have great moral indignation against Joseph Smith when he displayed the same or a similar nature and behavior as you are displaying?

Can you see the irony in that?

You seem to delight in mocking my Viking ancestry and my physical stature while verbally coming off someone beating his chest over and behind a computer screen. I have no idea what your ancestral lineage is, and I doubt you would tell me. But I would point out to you that many people on this board may have Scandinavian ancestry, so you are mocking them as well.

The irony is that the Vikings did in fact do a lot of raiding and pillaging that there's a good chance you Gabriel, have some Scandinavian DNA in you as well. Your welcome. Have you sequenced your DNA, as I have? I doubt you will tell me. If you do have any Scandinavian DNA in you, which you probably do, maybe a very low percentage I would guess since you are so ready to mock Scandinavians, then perhaps you would be condemning your own ancestry. Who knows?

At this point, if you keep asking the same question over and over again I'm going to find that rather immature. Asked and answered Gabriel. At this point I'm not going to answer your same question I already answered repeatedly.

I don't like your attitude, Gabriel. It makes no sense to me. I consider it irrational. I have not directed anything at you personally and have just been reacting to your attempted personal attacks. This board was not a personal letter to you. I never once brought up people with Down Syndrome. I'm actually confused by your behavior.

During my brief stint as a substitute teacher, I did for a brief time after college, I would sometimes refer to the classroom rules whenever a student was acting unruly and irrational. And if need be I would send the student to the office. So may I remind you:



You seem to be mocking my Scandinavian ancestry. Should I consider that a personal attack against my family members?

Again, asked and answered Gabriel. You're continuing on is a distraction to what I want which is a philosophical discussion. I have answered your question repeatedly. Why are you continuing to basically kind of harass me (like a flea you can't scratch off)? May I remind you of



And in case you try to mock me for bringing up "the rules," I would argue that maintaining rules is a masculine exercise. Without order there is chaos. Just spend some time in the military and you will see this. I would also guess that you condemn Joseph Smith for not following societal rules of proper conduct.

So let's move on shall we.

You sure are one long-winded Viking.

Let me see if I can condense your thesis in this forum (and correct me if I'm wrong). It seems that you are arguing that from a purely naturalistic, atheist worldview, one cannot condemn Joseph Smith; however one is perfectly free to admire him.

This is gonna be long winded response from your Friendly Neighborhood Viking, wink, wink. I am forming my thoughts through these discussions, so this helps me think things out.

Not sure if you are being sincere there, but close. 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.

I might start a new thread to discuss whether or not Smith can be considered a "great man" from an amoral "Gentile" perspective. If I do I will go into more detail on my philosophical theory. But for now I will just leave you with Bill Burr.

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. To condemn per the dictionary: "Full Definition of condemn ...1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil ...." Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn

I spent ten years as a critic of Smith and condemning me as an atheist, I had a blog and webpage at one point doing nothing but pointing out his errors and disking him and feeling moral outrage. But then I read Nietzsche and other modern atheists that are moral relativists. Since then I can see now that I was still operating from the Christian moral system, and such condemning gave me a sense of "moral superiority." Since then 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.

I spent a few years condemning the men in my life (that are relatives), through a highly moralizing Christian point of view. Since then, I have stepped back and now see these men in my family and extended family are admiral in many ways. Yes they made/make mistakes, but whether or not it was their fitness, or becoming boxing and kickboxing champions, or gun shooting champions, or elite salesmen, or becoming rich and giving lots of money to charity, these relatives of mine I now see as complex and they have inspired me to step up and accomplish greater things in my own life.

I simply distinguish between a man's admiral Aristotelian/Nietzschean virtues and his problematic "vices." His vices do not erase his virtues. As Nietzsche says in TSZ, On the Pale Criminal (Parkes' translation), of a person who committed a crime: "'Enemy’ shall you say, but not ‘evil doer’; ‘sick man’ shall you say, but not ‘knave’ [an unscrupulous man]; ‘fool’ shall you say, but not ‘sinner’. ..." To condemn implies Smith was an "evil" man, a "sinner," a man without Christian scruples (i.e. a Christian conscience, not doing the metaphysical "right" thing). On atheism, this does not make sense; as with atheism there is no such thing as metaphysical evil, no actual scruples floating in the air we can catch and are metaphysically triggered by offending an actual deity that dictates the holy Right and devilish Wrong.

One can surmise from the section on the pale criminal, that if the criminal therein had not been taken over of the metaphorical “dogs in his cellar” (that he did not turn into singing birds), and if he had a “strong reason” and thought in practical terms of the consequences of his actions, he would have chose otherwise through the inner wisdom of his body. Likewise, Smith simply lacked wisdom at times and gave in to his primal instincts too much and allowed his ego at times to flare up too much. Yet it was those same primal drives and big ego that allowed him to fight against the sectarians of his day that said his brother Alvin was being tormented in hell forever, and made him able to unite his family around his new religion (Dan Vogel's theory), and generate an egalitarian humanistic religion that has done a lot of good in the world (with yes much "bad" as well depending on your perceptions). Same as we can say about Thomas Jefferson and the USA, and many other powerful men of history.

All philosophy is autobiographical, so for me a more nuanced view of Smith frees me up from any residual pent up anger and resentment (at how Mormonism impacted me personally), and this release of such tension, and resentment, empowers my consciousness and makes me feel better, more powerful. 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? Can it empower from a mythic humanistic perspective? And with this view of Smith as complex, I am not as reactionary and angry when Mormon friends and relatives bring up Mormonism. Instead of going off for thirty minutes on how the Book of Mormon is not history, if someone makes a point by bringing up Nephi, I can now smile and take their point with stoic grace.

[Free Ranger]

I think that if you had read the same biological sciences and other things I have read there would be less disagreement. But then again you imply you have read the exact same books I have and the same sciences. So, I don't know?

Free Ranger: In my reading of what you're saying, the ideas you've put down in this thread aren't referencing biological science; they're nursing from the teat of one sorry strain of evolutionary psychology--mostly as interpreted by Jordan Peterson (who trained neither as biologist nor evolutionary psychologist).

To give one example, I think you misrepresent Frans de Waal. Sure, he's famous for maintaining that humans are still basically apes (hardly a new concept), but his work with bonobos has much more to do with promiscuity and cooperation than alpha male dominance.

But you're still working out what to think. Good for you. I'd caution that it's not all evopsych and Vikings. Try someone like Yuval Noah Harari for a different approach.

Good luck.

Yes I have absorbed a lot of Jordan Peterson material, but he is not my only influence. Why are you trying to pigeon hole me to just echoing just one author? What does that have to do with what I am arguing? I have in fact sat down and read many biological text books on science. I have read many books on the sex habits of humans from a biological perspective. I find the subject fascinating.

If you go back you will see that I simply linked to a talk by Frans De Waal. So I was not misrepresenting him but linking to me. We are of course related to bonobos and chimps, but I'd say we are slightly more like "chimpish" given our violent nature.

I recently discovered my Viking ancestry a few years ago so I guess it's on the tip of my tongue. I spent the last few years reading and studying about my ancestry so that is why I brought it up.

I am open-minded and like to change my mind through being convinced by good arguments or evidence. I checked out Yuval Noah Harari on YouTube and will watch and read more. I like what he says about God, distinguishing between the mysterious God and the God that tells you what to do with your genitals. Thanks for the mature and intellectually stimulating interchange thus far. I respect your feedback.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, Joseph Smith was definitely having sex with lots of women. Ron Jeremy also had sex with lots of women. But I don’t believe they were alpha males. I think they were betas who’s sexual strategies involved manipulation, maybe coercion, and other angles that actually compensated for their lack of desirability.

??? Who did Ron Jeremy manipulate or coerce? The women were paid to have sexual intercourse with him. He himself didn't do the recruiting at all. On the contrary, he was being paid to make love to them just as much as they were being paid to make love to him.

It's not analogous to Joseph Smith's situation at all.

From wiki:

More than a dozen women have publicly accused Jeremy of sexual assault. Several of the allegations relate to his appearances at fan conventions, alleging that he would grope and insert his fingers into attendees without their consent. The organizers of the Exxxotica national adult conventions permanently banned Jeremy from their shows in October 2017 after a social media campaign by webcam model Ginger Banks.[51][52][53] Due to the allegations, the Free Speech Coalition, an industry trade group, rescinded its Positive Image Award, which it had presented to him in 2009.[54]

In June 2020, Jeremy was charged with four counts of rape and sexual assault by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.[55][56] Jeremy was accused of forcibly raping a 25-year-old woman at a home in West Hollywood in May 2014. He also allegedly sexually assaulted two women, ages 33 and 46, on separate occasions at a West Hollywood bar in 2017, and is accused of forcibly raping a 30-year-old woman at the same bar in July 2019. Owner of Golden Artists Entertainment, Dante Rusciolelli, announced they were dropping Jeremy as a client following the charges.[57] On June 27, Jeremy pleaded not guilty to all charges. Jeremy posted his response to the charges on Twitter saying: "I am innocent of all charges. I can’t wait to prove my innocence in court! Thank you to everyone for all the support."[58]

Three days after Jeremy was initially charged, prosecutors said they had received an additional 25 allegations of misconduct involving Jeremy, 13 of which had occurred in Los Angeles County. Since then, six additional women who worked in the adult entertainment industry came forward claiming that Jeremy had raped or abused them. In July 2020, a law enforcement official confirmed that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department had received 30 new allegations of forcible rape and groping against Jeremy involving incidents that took place in Los Angeles County since 2000.[59]

On August 31, 2020, Los Angeles prosecutors filed 20 more counts that included charges of rape, sexual assault, sodomy and forcible penetration by foreign object against Jeremy. The charges involved 12 different women ranging in age from 15 to 54 years old, from 2004 to 2020. One woman alleges that Jeremy sexually assaulted her at a party in Santa Clarita in June 2004, when she was 15.[60] The most recent incident is said to have occurred on January 1, 2020, when a 21-year-old woman alleged that Jeremy sexually assaulted her outside of a business in Hollywood. Six other women alleged that Jeremy sexually assaulted them inside a West Hollywood bar he frequented, and another woman alleged that he assaulted her in the bar’s parking lot. Jeremy, who originally had bail set at $6.6 million when first charged in June, was placed into custody at Twin Towers Correctional Facility.[61][62] On August 25, 2021, he was indicted on a total of 30 sexual-assault counts involving 21 women.[7]

Tip of the iceberg, man.

- Doc

[Free Ranger]

Short answers.

Polygyny is a genetic trap where more of the population ends up with similar genes compared to populations with diverse sexual partnering. Evolution favors diversity. Lack of diversity results in lower probabilities of having at least some individuals survive environmental changes that pressure the population. Polyamory is more successful genetically but fraught socially.

Grant Hardy: Claimed the Book of Mormon contains greater complexity than the didactic reputation it's earned, and went on to show this by using literary close reading techniques like a Cracked.com article on why the Jedi are the actual villains of Star Wars. He asserts Nephi was a tragic figure who foresaw the destruction of his people which flavored his writings while ignoring the fact 1 and 2 Nephi were written after Moroni, for example. His book was, in a word, garbage. Three words? Literary hand waving.

I am not using eusocial metaphorically. Humans are eusocial. You've mentioned Jonathan Haidt. I suggest checking out E. O. Wilson.

Biology vs social evolution: If you like Haidt he has produced much on the subject. Biology isn't ethics. It does inform our moral approaches but not towards an obvious ethical end.

On the origins of the Book of Mormon: Smith fumbled an attempt to produce a book prior to the arrival of Cowdery. Were Smith the sole author of the Book of Mormon, he would have produced it in the year before with Harris as scribe rather than in the three months after Cowdery's arrival.

Finally: Dexter had one good season (the first), one excellent season (with Jonathan Lithgow) and the rest bordering between ok to down right awful. By the end it was a dumpster fire of a series with the worst series finale ever. Not debatable.

You wrote, “and went on to show this by using literary close reading techniques like a Cracked.com article on why the Jedi are the actual villains of Star Wars.” That’s pretty funny. And I don’t disagree. I am not a TBM. I do think you are denying though that the Book of Mormon is complex for a 23 year old to write. I could not have written the Book of Mormon when I was 23, and even with Cowdery's help it is still pretty impressive for 20 something year olds. OK, it is not Shakespeare, but why can't we acknowledge anything rather amazing/above average? I don’t think it is controversial to say that. In all due respect, I think you might be trying too hard to paint Smith only in a negative light. Yes it's like Star Wars, mythos, but still complex. That’s all I am saying. Nor am I saying it can’t be replicated. I skimmed The Sealed Portion - The Final Testament of Jesus Christ by Christopher Marc Nemelka, there was large print version at a local book store in my town. I was like this book is selling well enough, for a Large Print Version, WTF. The book was like twice as big as a normal large size book. And while it is obviously a fraud, it was kind of complex. Same with the Book of Mormon.

I have read some E. O. Wilson yes. Discussing this further does not really interest me to be honest, and I will just let the experts fight it out, as here is what whyevolutionistrue.com has to say:

Wilson: Humans are a “eusocial species”:

. . the known eusocial species arose very late in the history of life. It appears to have occurred not at all during the great Paleozoic diversification of insects, 350 to 250 million years before the present, during which the variety of insects approached that of today. Nor is there as yet any evidence of eusocial species during the Mesozoic Era until the appearance of the earliest termites and ants between 200 and 150 million years ago. Humans at the Homo level appeared only very recently, following tens of millions of years of evolution among the primates.

My response: “Eusociality” as defined by Wilson and every other evolutionist is the condition in which a species has a reproductive and social division of labor: eusocial species have “castes” that do different tasks, with a special reproductive caste (“queens”) that do all the progeny producing, and “worker castes” that are genetically sterile and do the tending of the colony. Such species include Hymenoptera (ants, wasps and bees, though not all species are eusocial), termites, naked mole rats, and some other insects.

But humans don’t have reproductive castes, nor genetically determined worker castes. Wilson is going against biological terminology, lumping humans with ants as “eusocial,” so he can apply his own theories of “altruism” in social insects (i.e., workers “unselfishly” help their mothers produce offspring while refraining themselves from reproducing), to humans. But human cooperation and altruism are very different from the behavior of ants, most notably in our absence of genetic castes and genetically-based sterility associated with helping others reproduce. Human females aren’t sterile, and don’t usually refrain from reproduction just to help other women have babies. My guess is that Wilson lumps humans with insects as “eusocial” because he wants to subsume them both under a Grand Theory of Social Evolution. Source: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/02/page/2/

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

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

[Free Ranger]

Free Ranger, the more I read of you, the more I think you've been listening to too much Tom Leykis.

He's my dad actually, Gotta make papa proud. I can't help it, I was raised on jack daniels and prostitutes. Just following my programming. Just kidding.

I have listened to maybe three hours total of Tom Leykis, spanning the last ten years. But wouldn't say he influenced me, no. I have listened to way more people different from Leykis. I pride my self on listening to both sides of any issue or philosophy. I listen to a lot of people. I listen to a lot of people on the left and right sociologically and politically. I have also listened to many feminists, and even took a Women's Studies class in college (patting my own back and virtue signaling, wink, wink). My talk at the end of class was on the atheism of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her critique of Christianity in her book, The Woman's Bible. Which to my surprise, angered many people in class that I dared quote her and her criticizing religion from a feminist perspective.

Not sure what your motive here is anyway, it smells like an ad hominin: "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

Have you considered that it was a collaborative effort? There have been many books produced that were co-authored, and in some cases having three authors. One of the reasons why I always have a sensible chuckle with regard to a Book of Mormon wordprint analysis revealing multiple writing styles is because it literally has multiple writing styles. From plagiarized material to co-authors, there’s no reason why Joseph Smith couldn’t have been the idea man with a grand narrative and someone like OC was a co-author, editor, and synergy guy taking swaths of texts from different sources and colluding with Joseph Smith to mirror-plagiarize them into the framework of an epic. All the crap about stones in hats and reciting whatever was just showmanship and retconning. The work was done in private in order to to produce a novel, which is exactly what the Book of Mormon was intended to be.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

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 e

It sounds to me like you're trying to figure out what morality is, and from there, the judgment of Smith varies. Smith is just a case study in the bigger issue of morality.

One problem is there is no "purely atheistic" view of morality. DCP would say Korihor nailed it for atheists, and Joseph Smith did pretty well under his philosophy.
Utilitarianism is far more important to atheism than Nietzsche, historically, however. A lot alt-right religious men are into the great "re-masculinization of men" stuff you're talking about. Just recently, a TBM relative of mine has found answers to the difficulties of polygamy in the bull-moose polygamist, whose wives are better off that way, being there to help each other.

It's true that Nietzsche can make you think twice about the motives for judging the powerful. But I doubt Smith is what Nietzsche had in mind for "the Overman". Nice guys finish last, right? And they're just jealous they aren't the big dog. So it's the weak men who leave Mormonism based on the improprieties of Smith. Early polygamists made similar arguments about lesser-stock 'gentiles' who condemned polygamy. But all the re-masculinization stuff is more self-help than philosophy; it's not matter-of-fact about the world, it's there to help men losing out get laid, if necessary, with allusions to philosophers. In other words, it's for non-alphas who need a gimmick to compete. Others in this thread have suggested Smith fell into this category himself.

Yes, under the Victorian morality that many of us were raised under as good LDS, the revelations of Church history are shocking. Caricatures of atheism by Victorian moralists perhaps justify Smith, but the alt-right is busy providing the fixes in perspective needed for Mormons to embrace their history not "warts and all" but in celebration of a religious entrepreneur who went out and got what was his, in terms of money, notoriety, and sex.

[Free Ranger]

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

Have you considered that it was a collaborative effort? There have been many books produced that were co-authored, and in some cases having three authors. One of the reasons why I always have a sensible chuckle with regard to a Book of Mormon wordprint analysis revealing multiple writing styles is because it literally has multiple writing styles. From plagiarized material to co-authors, there’s no reason why Joseph Smith couldn’t have been the idea man with a grand narrative and someone like OC was a co-author, editor, and synergy guy taking swaths of texts from different sources and colluding with Joseph Smith to mirror-plagiarize them into the framework of an epic. All the crap about stones in hats and reciting whatever was just showmanship and retconning. The work was done in private in order to to produce a novel, which is exactly what the Book of Mormon was intended to be.

- Doc

One of the first books I read on this subject was, Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon by David Persuitte. I went on to read several others that make it clear Smith is most probably the sole author of the Book of Mormon.

Even before reading Vogel’s Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, online free here: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph ... a-prophet/ , I saw Smith’s personality all over the Book of Mormon when I became open to a naturalistic explanation of the Book of Mormon. I suggest spending some time reading The Joseph Smith Papers, read his journals, read his sermons, letters, speeches. Then go back to the Book of Mormon,he is all over that book. For example, his arguments and fights with his siblings end up as projections in his characters in the Book of Mormon. And on and on.

TBMs of course downplay Smith’s intelligence and creative capacity. In my TBM days I read the Scriptural Teachings of Joseph Smith (or STJS), and it was then I realized his biblical knowledge and ability to pull out a verse from his subconscious and weave it effortlessly into his communications, as that book STJS puts footnotes next to every time he references the Bible. The Joseph Smith Papers has updated STJS though, as that book was not always accurate. But you do see that, as Harold Bloom puts it, Smith was a "religious genius." An “evil” genius through a Christian moral lens if you must, but then so were all those who wrote the pseudepigrapha/forgeries (per Bart Ehrman) that made it's way into the Bible.

So could Joseph Smith have had help here and there, I don’t see why not. No one can rule it out. But I don't think it is necessary. I would say first read Vogel’s book and then Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon by William L. Davis https://www.amazon.com/Visions-Seer-Sto ... 1469655667

According to Wikipedia, "Most naturalistic views on Book of Mormon origins hold that Smith authored it, ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

And yes I did look into the collaborative theories and don't find them convincing, though possible. I am open to Oliver Cowdery helping him along here and there, I would not rule that out. But again, it is not necessary. Smith was creative and intelligent enough to do it himself in my opinion.

Keep in mind as well that Sandra Tanner, last I checked -- who knows way more than I do -- thinks Smith was the sole author of the Book of Mormon.

[Free Ranger]

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 e

It sounds to me like you're trying to figure out what morality is, and from there, the judgment of Smith varies. Smith is just a case study in the bigger issue of morality.

One problem is there is no "purely atheistic" view of morality. DCP would say Korihor nailed it for atheists, and Joseph Smith did pretty well under his philosophy.
Utilitarianism is far more important to atheism than Nietzsche, historically, however. A lot alt-right religious men are into the great "re-masculinization of men" stuff you're talking about. Just recently, a TBM relative of mine has found answers to the difficulties of polygamy in the bull-moose polygamist, whose wives are better off that way, being there to help each other.

It's true that Nietzsche can make you think twice about the motives for judging the powerful. But I doubt Smith is what Nietzsche had in mind for "the Overman". Nice guys finish last, right? And they're just jealous they aren't the big dog. So it's the weak men who leave Mormonism based on the improprieties of Smith. Early polygamists made similar arguments about lesser-stock 'gentiles' who condemned polygamy. But all the re-masculinization stuff is more self-help than philosophy; it's not matter-of-fact about the world, it's there to help men losing out get laid, if necessary, with allusions to philosophers. In other words, it's for non-alphas who need a gimmick to compete. Others in this thread have suggested Smith fell into this category himself.

Yes, under the Victorian morality that many of us were raised under as good LDS, the revelations of Church history are shocking. Caricatures of atheism by Victorian moralists perhaps justify Smith, but the alt-right is busy providing the fixes in perspective needed for Mormons to embrace their history not "warts and all" but in celebration of a religious entrepreneur who went out and got what was his, in terms of money, notoriety, and sex.

I think you have hit on my subjective bias a bit. I am coming at this from a certain angle, influenced by my own autobiography (as all philosophy is autobiographical). When I resigned I adopted a Buddhist and Liberal-Christian stance even though I was a nontheist, maintaining the moral authority of the Bible for some existential grounding. In the process of this phase (after my resignation from the Church) for a few years I noticed a physiological shift in my nature: I became more docile, less motivated, with memes like: “all is impermanent,” there is “No-self,” better “Not to touch a woman,” better to be a “eunuch for the kingdom,” “Do good to those who persecute you,” Woe to the rich, don’t fight back so you can “lump hot coals on their head” and Yahweh will get vengeance for you, seek low status and seek to suffer in imitation of the Suffering Messiah or disengage as there is no self, all is impermanent, etc. These philosophical ideas affected me as I tried to be a "good man," a liberal man, a "moral" man. In the end it just siphoned the life out of me. Then I read Nietzsche and other moral relativists that helped me realize that like many atheists I had retained my Christian moralizing. Nietzsche was like an existential therapist for me, he showed how my seeking existential grounding from Liberal Christianity and Buddhism after Mormonism, was negatively affecting me in many ways.

Side note, as mentioned before on this thread, I do have my Christian Humanist moments, and do not oppose to those like John Shelby Spong, etc.

No Nietzsche is not my guru, I could cut and paste volumes of notes into this board criticizing Nietzsche. I have read a few books pointing out the problems in his philosophy. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. And right, I do think the typical "nice guy" does finish last. That is my experience and the truth of history. Being overly kindly, uncompetitive, overly accommodating, afraid of conflict, is in fact a recipe for last place; which affects not just you but everyone around you for the worse. As mentioned before I went through this in grade school, affected by the flannel board Jesus concept, all meek and nice and everything right. Being shy and introverted this meant my passivity was a target for the alpha males or aggressive males in general seeking to express their dominance which is natural. But once I changed my personal philosophy to more Nietzschean than Pauline (though I would not have framed it as such as a kid), my life became happier. I stared lifting weights, boxing in my backyard and taking lessons, started socializing more at Mormon youth dances and at clubs, and my self-esteem improved as I took masculine action, fought back, stood up for my self, and expanded my personal boundary, etc.

To be clear, I am not saying, “Nice guys are just jealous they aren't the big dog. So it's the weak men who leave Mormonism based on the improprieties of Smith.” That is a straw man caricature of what I am saying. I know lots of exmormons personally who don’t fit that category, but are alpha males themselves. In fact, I would argue that many alpha males are leading the exmormon community, because men rally around strong minded men leading the pack. I won't name names because I think we exmormons have our "sacred cows."

So yes I will speak autobiographically, and say my environment and surroundings and what I intellectually consume has some effect on me. I was negatively affected by taking Buddhism and Pauline Christianity seriously for a few years. Watching Rock 4 as a youngster motivated me to get in shape. We are all either inspired and motivated or demotivated. I don’t think any of us are immune from this, unless your life is just working in a cubicle or something and you have no goals or ambitions. Just walk into the house of powerful men who are happy and successful, and I bet you will see books that are motivating, maybe the bios of great men, or they surround themselves with high-status men. Then go into the homes of those not accomplishing much, I would bet you will find works that mostly complain about the successful in life in one way or another.

And no I am not Republican. I did not vote for Trump. I am a centrist and have voted Democrat as far as I can remember.

I am tall in stature and muscular and know how to fight but I do have a sensitive/empathic side to me (which is why part of me resonates with Joseph Smith's egalitarian vision of Zion and to "esteem your brother as yourself", etc). 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.

According to the book Alpha God, it is programmed into men to want to rally around the alpha male. Since then I have noticed that usually when you have a man on TV complaining about powerful men, he himself is a powerful man, that scratched and clawed his way to his position and is acted like the savior of the lower status males and damsels in distress. I am not saying this is wrong. I support an alpha male fighting for the little guy, again I have a sensitive side. But we can't ignore that strength is required in this world to accomplish most things, especially in Capitalist America.

Just image going to war with a beta male leading your group, now image an war-intelligent alpha male leading you, which do your prefer? Imagine aliens are watching us right now, if they see us become even more overly sensitive, watch society attacking our strong men, wanting men to become more emasculated, docile, etc., so that the UFC is banned, speech is regulated so as to never offend, medicine is given out to remedy "toxic masculinity" (like the 2002 movie Equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_(film) ) , etc., are they not gonna see an easy target? And if aliens aren't watching you can bet other more masculine nations are paying attention. I admit that is hyperbolic.

So saying that seeking inspiration from great men is “for non-alphas who need a gimmick to compete,” is rather cynical and judgmental. Since most men are not alpha males, this is what sounds like a Woke caricature of men seeking to yes improve themselves. I am not going to apologize for wanting to improve myself, improve my capacity to become stronger to be a better protector and provider, to be wiser to make more money that benefits loved ones. Since when did masculinity become “evil”?

As I have journeyed throughout this life on this pale dot, I have found that Roosevelt speech is more true than anything:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

It's easy to endlessly debunk and destruct and condemn and criticize, I know I spent many years doing it. Now I am more interested in being inspired by those who have the courage to step into the arena.

Maybe we had a teacher, coach, father, etc., inspire us to compete and we became better, stronger, greater, happier. What is wrong with that? Should we seek instead to be influenced in such a way to become weaker, lesser, more unhappy, and low in status?

Does it really have to be either-or, just one of two extreme ends of the spectrum: The alt-right or Wokeism; The Proud Boys or Third Wave Feminism? Mad Men or Fill in the Blank. Is there a middle way? I am after that middle way.