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

[Free Ranger]

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 was actually making a joke with the Burger King thing. But as to your point, I understand psychologically why you feel that way. Unlike Mormon apologists I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass or mine on that issue. The Church was not forthcoming about all its historical problems until recently. You're not going to see me trying to argue otherwise. I guess I'm just not angry about it anymore, but I was for 15 years so I get it.

I have thought long and hard about the issue of tithing. If you want I will give my detailed opinion on that but at the end of the day I agree with Shawn McCraney in the video link I provided in this thread, that you get more bang for your buck in the Mormon church. I mean, we're all irritated at something I think. Like I said, I'm irritated that I invested so much emotion into Liberalism and now it is transformed into Wokeism and has made me their enemy. The Mormon church may have not told me the whole recipe to the whole enchilada, but they did give me a lot of recipes and cooking experience. I have benefited from Mormonism overall. In my view, the money I put in has come back to me in one way or another or will be funneled into benefiting future Mormons. Mormons leaders not flying around in private jets and building mansions like some of the Evangelical televangelists. I have spent many hours using the Church facilities and benefiting from the social programs. I remember going to the Los Angeles temple's visitor's center as a kid and going into the theater and watching LDS videos that helped my dad be a better father. My mission actually did wonders for me as an introvert. Boy Scouts taught me valuable lessons and I have fond memories interacting with Mormons and Scout leaders. Rather than having to only go to clubs and bars, etc., in Southern California (which I did at one point in my youth) it was way better at the Mormon youth dances. Those social activities cost money. I have visited many temples with my father and my brother (in my twenties) and I have fond memories of those experiences.

But to answer your question I do see the difference and I take your point.

Please don't compare me to Daniel Peterson, I am my own individual self. I have to admit that is annoying to me. Whenever someone says to anyone that is just like so and so. I think it's just a way to ignore an argument. It really rubs me the wrong way. It reminds me of a friend of mine who says it was always annoying as a kid when his single divorced mother said occasionally, "You're just like your father." I think many people on here raised by a single mother might resonate with that. It just feels dismissive and belittling as a deflective combination of an ad hominem and poisoning the well.

You said, "your suggestion that writers need to respect hard-and-fast narrative boundaries so that we can forever have movies like First Blood is absurd." That is a Straw Man. I never said any such thing. I don't know why, that if I as a liberal have a few conservative views, I'm lumped in with everybody that you know on the far-right. Is that fair? I don't think so. But then again perhaps it's just your tribal nature.

[Marcus]

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.

The parts I enlarged are the key to understanding what’s in between. Other than that, I disagree on your assumptions about how “women” think.

How people think can be plotted on a continuum. There is considerable overlap between and a very wide spread across how groups of people think, using a variety of biological markers. Defining a group as being one particular way seems to be the base of the considerable stereotyping you’ve done in this thread, but it’s inaccurate. It’s also not a very helpful way to realistically approach issues, but you are correct in noting that the type of stereotyping you engage in will be better supported within the LDS church than without.

[Marcus]

I have thought long and hard about the issue of tithing. …you get more bang for your buck in the Mormon church…

In my view, the money I put in has come back to me in one way or another or will be funneled into benefiting future Mormons.

Mormons leaders not flying around in private jets and building mansions like some of the Evangelical televangelists.

I have spent many hours using the Church facilities and benefiting from the social programs.

…My mission actually did wonders for me as an introvert.

Boy Scouts taught me valuable lessons and I have fond memories interacting with Mormons and Scout leaders.

That’s a pretty solid list of some of Mormonism’s most egregious issues. Is this meant to be ironic? Or a parody in some way?

[Free Ranger]

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.

Gadianton,

To clarify, I'm not saying that all of Hollywood, every screenwriter, producer and movie maker is attempting to turn the "patriarchy into a matriarchy" as you put it. I guarantee you that Quentin Tarantino is not going to jump on that bandwagon. But to say that there is no trend at all and that nothing I say has any validity, I think is not being fair minded; and I'm not going to say that you are trying to intentionally gaslight me, but I will say that it feels like gaslighting. For I could give you several examples upon examples, that I do think that there is a segment of Hollywood currently that has adopted the woke cult mentality and are seeking to produce a feminine empowerment mythology that does more than just empower women (which I endorse) but belittles and undermines men as well. In the video I provided here https://youtu.be/Nqmd4iU8J3k she discusses the new female characters in many recent movies, and she makes my point for me. By the way, for the woke feminist people I did try and find out the name of the woman who made the video and it's not readily available, at least I couldn't find her name. But I specifically like her analysis of the scene of the blue-haired woman in the new Star Wars movie. As she points out, it's not enough for the female characters to just be powerful but they must constantly make snide remarks against men to propagate the feminist woke propaganda. Here is another clip that came to my mind that does a good job summarizing what I am saying:
https://youtu.be/6uToXl7N4Ls

As far as I could tell, that was a cabinet full of all/only women. So am I really just exaggerating?

As others have pointed out, part of the feminist woke agenda is to argue against the biological differences of the sexes as it promotes its supernatural cult propaganda that there is no difference between men and women, that all perceived differences are social constructions. If you want I can send you several links from the atheistic magazine Skeptic that discusses this in detail.

So the scene of the cabinet above is intentional and part of the woke cult mentality. Similarly, Kathleen Kennedy used the phrase "The Force is female" in the context of Star Wars. Mythologically the Force was always a neutral power containing both yin and yang. But the woke cult religion is a feminine religion that sees masculinity as toxic. Which is why in the scene on the train in Terminator: Dark Fate, the female characters make a snide remark against the male hero archetype. Saying something along the lines of, to paraphrase, we don't need a male hero, we are our own feminine saviors. In my view, it is a reactionary cult spawned by the spotlight put on the cesspool of Hollywood which has been full of bad men dominating and exploiting women for decades. It is one big virtue signal, perhaps a kind of repentance process, a kind of penance in a way perhaps. If that is what it is, a kind of purging of the dark energy amidst the narcissistic and psychopathic personalities in Hollywood that have mistreated women, fine, OK; I just wish that they would stop annihilating male characters in franchises in order to propagate their cult.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, just Google how the fans of Star Wars overall feel about how they treated Luke Skywalker and other characters. Please don't gaslight me (at least it feels like it even if you don't mean to) and so many Star Wars fans on this issue.

Perhaps you just perceive things completely differently than I do and the woman who made the video clip above. And that is okay, at the end of the day everyone has their own subjective experience. I don't expect you to completely agree and think like me and her, and Peter Boghossian and Star Wars fans, and so many others. But I think that if somebody else read my words and examined my sources, I think they would immediately get what I'm saying and agree. If you do not, then to me it's just a matter of subjectivity and perception and one's inbuilt psychological and biological disposition to lean towards a particular political/philosophical point of view.

We can agree to disagree.

Discussing the movie issue further is really a dead end anyway. It was only a small brick in the larger castle I was building to make the case that it seems to me I'm better off in Mormon culture today (especially as a man); and was seeking feedback and curious if that is true. So far I have just been denied my experience and after wondering if masculinity and manhood is more respected in Mormonism, the response has been for some (not all) to attack my masculine nature and insult me.

As to your comment, "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." I'm not going to say that the Book of Mormon is on par with Shakespeare or the Iliad and Odyssey. Joseph Smith was only around 23 when he completed it. But I do think it has more literary value than many ex-Mormons give it credit for. I have begun to reread it recently and I'm documenting my insights which I provide in this article linked below. My current title is Reading the Book of Mormon Again as Inspired Allegory (Narrative Scripturalization), Self-Improvement Literature & An Uplifting form of Muscular Christianity. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P ... t4BOQ_/pub

I decided to summarize the main insights I have gleaned thus far after reading 1 and 2 Nephi and its literary value as a form of Muscular Christianity. In the following shorter article I highlight in bold the passages that I consider pro-masculine and empowering for men: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P ... uXcG_1/pub

I completely disagree with you that there's nothing from the Church that sheds any light on masculinity. I could literally send you a thousand pages of information and LDS sources that proves that is untrue.

For those who are tempted to criticize all forms of masculinity, I would add that the Book of Mormon is also surprisingly egalitarian; and has a lot of feminine energy as far as encouraging compassion and condemning excessive male pride and looking down on people of a lower social class. The call to bear one another's burdens and esteem your brother/sister as yourself, is an extremely compassionate and egalitarian emphasis. So in my view, it's not a perfect text, but it does a good job of balancing yin and yang, the masculine and feminine.

[Free Ranger]

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.

I don't know if I already responded to this post by you. But I did just post on the issue of woke movies. But to answer your question about a video explaining wokeism. There is this website I recommend: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ... -wokeness/

Note that the author of this website is not a far-right political person. I believe he is a liberal. He is not a religious Fundamentalist, but an atheist. But he knows Cultism when he see it.

If you're looking for videos, I recommend the exmormon Jonathan Streeter, and his recent videos on Wokeism here: https://youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh3uDMH0GZlwl1JOoHQ

I also recommend the videos by the exMormon atheist Chris Hanna. For example, see https://youtu.be/CgmvO8_-fww

[bill4long]

I guess I'll jump in...

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.

Cultural programming is much harder to escape from than theological programming. My experience with Mormonism is exactly the opposite. I was not very culturally happy as a Mormon, except on Boy Scout outings, which obviously doesn't require Mormonism. I have found a lot more cultural happiness and brotherhood within Freemasonry and ham radio and drinking at the pub with all the other armchair philosophers. To each his own.

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.

Every rose has its thorns. As the song goes, "you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life, the facts of life." And try to do better.

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.

It depends on how one defines "best." That humans are emotional and tribal is a basic fact of human nature. Not sure of the point you're trying to make here. Is it that Mormonism has some good things going for it? Okay. So what? So do a lot of other groups, traditions, religions, non-religions, and anything else you can imagine. Find what works for you and do it.

Do you think that the people in the audience had actually analyzed whether or not it is true that America is the greatest country,

It's entirely subjective.

or did they get caught up in the emotional tribalism of the moment?

What's wrong with that?

And why don't all the exMormons go to the embassy and renounce their citizenship based on what Ellis pointed out?

Because they don't want to.

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.

It depends on how you define "worse." It's a very debatable subject loaded with subjective views and feelings.

I don't know about you but I'm not going to renounce my citizenship and I consider myself part of the American tribe.

Cool.

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?

While Americanism is tribal, it is a secular system; it isn't a high-demand religion with truth claims that asserts to have the "keys" necessary to get humans to the "Celestial Kingdom" and godhood.

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;

Treating the other team as "the other" is perfectly rational if the objective is to beat the other team.

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.

Competition is baked into all life on this planet.

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?

For whom? I'm an exmo and I find cultural Mormonism quite unattractive, as do many folks on God's green earth. To each his own.

In Protestantism and Catholicism you have a vaporous male father deity and male Jesus and nearly all the angels are male.

What Christianity, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims have is a Deity that is the Ground of All Being, and beyond human form, and vapour has nothing to do with it. We think this is a feature not a bug. We think the Mormon god is kind of an bronze-age, derived, anthroprophic, kindergarten-mindset god on steroids. To each his own.

My question to you is: in a few words, what is it that you want?

Seems like you're pining to be a Mormon again. Kind of like pining for the ex-wife, cause she was good at parties and good in bed, while ignoring all the other stuff that made her a crappy wife.

--Bill

[Gadianton]

FR,

Recently, you said this:

To clarify, I'm not saying that all of Hollywood, every screenwriter, producer and movie maker is attempting to turn the "patriarchy into a matriarchy" as you put it.

I remind you of what I was responding to:

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.

patriarchy to matriarchy isn't how I put it, it was how you put it, although maybe I minced your words slightly.

But to say that there is no trend at all and that nothing I say has any validity, I think is not being fair minded

Your comment above may not say every screenwriter is afflicted with this problem, but it does say Hollywood is laying siege upon men, generally speaking, and that is what I think is an exaggeration.

As it turns out, the video I responded to after looking up "woke feminism" is the very video you are recommending.

Here was one of my comments to that video, in case you missed it:

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.

I would also suggest that in mainstream cinema, there is not much left to do to put the next twist on some of these worn-out characters. Turning the heroes into women is just another gimmick to get a franchise name out there that sells tickets. Your video says that these woke feminist movies are doing terribly. That being the case, Hollywood isn't in the business of losing money, and so I suspect what you're seeing is a fad that will wear out, especially if audiences aren't buying it. I do think that the sassy female leads are being overinterpreted as a serious assault on masculinity. I suspect that the movies would have sucked even with male leads, because mainstream movies have sucked for years. I suspect that feminism as an intellectual movement, particularly in the literary realm, isn't backing summer blockbuster "strong female lead" movies as the fruits of their plan the whole time.

I probably wouldn't want to see any of the films mentioned in the video. I watch exclusively what's available on Amazon or Netflix. I can see the "woke" influences here, but it's generally political or racial. My right-wing friends, when they complain, it's the racial dimension they are concerned about and the attack on men isn't something I knew was a sub-genre of woke until you brought it up in this thread.

[Free Ranger]

I guess I'll jump in...

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.

Cultural programming is much harder to escape from than theological programming. My experience with Mormonism is exactly the opposite. I was not very culturally happy as a Mormon, except on Boy Scout outings, which obviously doesn't require Mormonism. I have found a lot more cultural happiness and brotherhood within Freemasonry and ham radio and drinking at the pub with all the other armchair philosophers. To each his own.

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.

Every rose has its thorns. As the song goes, "you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life, the facts of life." And try to do better.

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.

It depends on how one defines "best." That humans are emotional and tribal is a basic fact of human nature. Not sure of the point you're trying to make here. Is it that Mormonism has some good things going for it? Okay. So what? So do a lot of other groups, traditions, religions, non-religions, and anything else you can imagine. Find what works for you and do it.

Do you think that the people in the audience had actually analyzed whether or not it is true that America is the greatest country,

It's entirely subjective.

or did they get caught up in the emotional tribalism of the moment?

What's wrong with that?

And why don't all the exMormons go to the embassy and renounce their citizenship based on what Ellis pointed out?

Because they don't want to.

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.

It depends on how you define "worse." It's a very debatable subject loaded with subjective views and feelings.

I don't know about you but I'm not going to renounce my citizenship and I consider myself part of the American tribe.

Cool.

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?

While Americanism is tribal, it is a secular system; it isn't a high-demand religion with truth claims that asserts to have the "keys" necessary to get humans to the "Celestial Kingdom" and godhood.

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;

Treating the other team as "the other" is perfectly rational if the objective is to beat the other team.

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.

Competition is baked into all life on this planet.

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?

For whom? I'm an exmo and I find cultural Mormonism quite unattractive, as do many folks on God's green earth. To each his own.

In Protestantism and Catholicism you have a vaporous male father deity and male Jesus and nearly all the angels are male.

What Christianity, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims have is a Deity that is the Ground of All Being, and beyond human form, and vapour has nothing to do with it. We think this is a feature not a bug. We think the Mormon god is kind of an bronze-age, derived, anthroprophic, kindergarten-mindset god on steroids. To each his own.

My question to you is: in a few words, what is it that you want?

Seems like you're pining to be a Mormon again. Kind of like pining for the ex-wife, cause she was good at parties and good in bed, while ignoring all the other stuff that made her a crappy wife.

--Bill

bill4long,

I totally respect what you have to say. You actually ended up agreeing with me a lot. I don't know if that was your intention.

I have often thought about joining Freemasonry.

To answer your initial question, my point is that like you said, agreeing with me, we are simply tribal beings. And the point I was making is that I agree with Cardon Ellis (in the debate with RFM) that you can be so cynical in your interpretation of an organization's past that if you applied that same mindset everywhere you would end up deconstructing and undermining any organization; including the United States of America.

I was pointing out the double standard in how some (not all) ex-Mormons, which I have done myself, will nitpick and hyperfocus on the flaws of Mormonism and have a very cynical interpretation of its historical past, demanding purity; but they don't apply the same moralizing Lens when viewing "Americanism." For example they will really hyper-focus on the Meadows Massacre, then overlook Hiroshima. I could go on and on with examples of this kind. They will have pride in America and feel part of it (a member of the tribe) and not renounce their citizenship or start a blog or website pointing out the errors in America's past. They will not do the same for their Mormon heritage that they do for their American heritage. To be clear, I'm not speaking about all ex-Mormons. I know that many e Mormons do appreciate their Heritage.

It has occurred to me recently as I've changed my mind about my exMormonism position, that I have always been respectful to the military and US soldiers and have said things like "thank you for your service." I have always been proud of those who fought and bled for what I enjoy today as an American. I have not always had the same generosity of interpretation for my Mormon ancestors. Recently I've spent some time reading early Mormon documents and how much the Mormon pioneers really did suffer and bleed in order to provide me with all the benefits I enjoyed growing up Mormon.

You are right that there is nothing wrong with exMormons getting caught up in the emotional tribalism of the moment. You're making my point for me. But I don't know what that was your intention. My point is that whether you find a sense of belonging and tribal belonging in Mormonism or outside of it, you are still satisfying that tribal need. You agreed with me, that in the process we are going to make trade-offs and concessions and allowances for the faults and errors of our tribe.

I'm sure that if you were being completely 100% honest, there are things about your version of Christianity and your membership in Freemasonry, that if you were to be very cynical and nitpicking, you could find fault.

Do you really think that if the worst aspects of our American history was put up against the worst aspects of Mormonism, that it would not be clear then given the more number of Americans and the more time has gone on for fallible human beings to make mistakes? Again, just one example, Mountain Meadows <> Hiroshima. Again I am not making a case against America. I'm a proud American. I'm saying that if you're going to be a proud American and have a fair-minded interpretation of the American past then why not do the same with Mormonism?

You claim that Americanism is only a secular system. Perhaps you did not read my previous posts in this thread where I demonstrate that Americanism is actually based a lot in supernatural presuppositions. Please refer to those posts as I would be curious as to your response.

My point was that seeing a person as an opponent on a sports team is irrational in the sense that, per evolutionary psychology, I would say that this is more than just seeing an opponent but based on deep irrational and passionate drives. Our instinctual drives are not rational. Dreams are not rational either by the way. Our tribal ancestors would literally kill off their opponents which was rational in the uncivilized worlds of those times of the past. In our modern society of civility and law and order, it is now irrational to ignite our tribal mechanisms that will lead us to kill. This is why everyone is condemning Will Smith. He was reacting instinctually but in civilized society, his actions were irrational. We can decide for ourselves how rational or irrational it is to channel our tribal nature into punching out somebody in the boxing ring or scoring on them on the basketball court, or slamming into them with a football helmet on. I would say it's not rational or irrational, but natural. I would say the same thing in regards to religion, is not rational or irrational but natural. As Joseph Campbell put it, to paraphrase, religion is public dreams and private dreams are inner religions. Someone on the political far-left might say it is irrational from a compassion based point of view. But as you said, competition is baked into all of the planet. We are totally on the same page. You're supporting my point. We agree quite a lot, not sure if that was your intention though.

Regarding the Mormon God versus the Protestant God, to each his own. But I recommend that you read Michael Heiser, an Evangelical, who has actually come out and said things that match very closely with Mormonism. His recent scholarship sounds so Mormon to me that he's actually tried very hard to distance himself from Mormonism. I spent several hours watching his content and skimming his books. He makes a strong case for deification on par with Mormonism, and basically agrees with Mormons that there clearly was a Council of Gods (which he describes as Yahweh and his Elohim / lesser gods). Before you so readily dismiss the concept of the Father-God having a body, I highly recommend the recent book God: An Anatomy by Francesca Stavrakopolou, which covers the most recent biblical scholarship. I think even an exMormon objectively examines the evidence, would recognize that Joseph Smith was right about the anthropomorphic nature of the Hebrew God.

If you are the kind of person who dismisses biblical scholarship then okay, but if you were to apply the same critical lens to Mormonism to Protestantism, you would find more problems in your own religion. I know that I did when I was a Protestant/Evangelical Christian for a short time. I know that Shawn McCcraney did. If you do not apply the same critical lens, then in all due respect, aren't you practicing a double standard? And from a humanistic perspective, do you not see it odd psychologically that there is no Feminine Divine representation in your theology?

What do I want? As I told a friend of a woman I was dating once, when she asked me what I want from her friend: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But seriously, I've been describing what I want all throughout this thread. To summarize, I'm simply contemplating what path will bring me the most happiness.

I like your analogy of me pining for the ex-wife. That's funny. Although your analogy works the other way to, right? What if a guy leaves a good woman with a few flaws and goes around dating and realizes he's not happy was other women; that he got along best with her and they not only had good sex but there was a connection with her, and the kids, and it provided him greater meaning and purpose; and he realizes he is happier with her. Meanwhile, he has grown to appreciate her more after spending time away from her; and not only that but she has undergone some serious therapy and made some serious changes of herself. So when they do come together their mutual changes and improvements complement each other. So he remarries her and has a happy marriage.

But again, I am just exploring that option for myself. Whether or not I ever attend the Mormon church again is uncertain. But where my mind is currently settled is that philosophically and spiritually, of all the options I consider myself philosophically Mormon. And it will always be my culture; Mormon is to me as Judaism is to a Jew.

[huckelberry]

I checked the Chris Hanna link. He discovered that Benson was prophetic, the communist are using the civil rights movement to take over America.

I think the civil rights movement is larger and more important than communist efforts to use it. It is true that the party has tried to use the movement for a hundred years now.

[Free Ranger]

FR,

Recently, you said this:

To clarify, I'm not saying that all of Hollywood, every screenwriter, producer and movie maker is attempting to turn the "patriarchy into a matriarchy" as you put it.

I remind you of what I was responding to:

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.

patriarchy to matriarchy isn't how I put it, it was how you put it, although maybe I minced your words slightly.

But to say that there is no trend at all and that nothing I say has any validity, I think is not being fair minded

Your comment above may not say every screenwriter is afflicted with this problem, but it does say Hollywood is laying siege upon men, generally speaking, and that is what I think is an exaggeration.

As it turns out, the video I responded to after looking up "woke feminism" is the very video you are recommending.

Here was one of my comments to that video, in case you missed it:

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.

I would also suggest that in mainstream cinema, there is not much left to do to put the next twist on some of these worn-out characters. Turning the heroes into women is just another gimmick to get a franchise name out there that sells tickets. Your video says that these woke feminist movies are doing terribly. That being the case, Hollywood isn't in the business of losing money, and so I suspect what you're seeing is a fad that will wear out, especially if audiences aren't buying it. I do think that the sassy female leads are being overinterpreted as a serious assault on masculinity. I suspect that the movies would have sucked even with male leads, because mainstream movies have sucked for years. I suspect that feminism as an intellectual movement, particularly in the literary realm, isn't backing summer blockbuster "strong female lead" movies as the fruits of their plan the whole time.

I probably wouldn't want to see any of the films mentioned in the video. I watch exclusively what's available on Amazon or Netflix. I can see the "woke" influences here, but it's generally political or racial. My right-wing friends, when they complain, it's the racial dimension they are concerned about and the attack on men isn't something I knew was a sub-genre of woke until you brought it up in this thread.

I see your point, I can see that in my initial post that perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic. But like you said, you did kind of mince my words a bit. I never clearly said that all of Hollywood has been in on some kind of conspiracy. I should have been more clear about how I was referring to a trend and a pattern, not an overall complete takeover.

I believe I recommended the video on "woke feminism" before you did. I think you just missed it.

I have absorbed your perspective and can see where you are coming from. I agree with some of your points. To be honest, if I may, I'm getting a little bored focusing on the discussion of movies, as again it was just one brick in the castle. I was expressing how I perceive things. You see it as an exaggeration. Others out there will not see it as an exaggeration and some will. We can agree to disagree.

I hope you are right that it is a fad. That is what my liberal friends say. They keep telling me it's a fad and it's fading away. But then I watch something new and I find myself getting annoyed having propaganda shoved down my throat instead of just entertaining me or inspiring me which was what I'm paying for. I guess this is what annoys me most about many of the woke feminists making cinema, is their narcissistic entitlement in not caring what the fans actually want. For example I put down money, enter the theater and I've already situated myself and got comfortable, I'm an hour in and realizing I'm absorbing Woke propaganda. Annoying. I have often wondered if they have Wokeameter. If they did I would use it before watching anything. Woke score: 8.9. Okay I'm not seeing that one! LOL.