Just finished reading Human All too Human (Cambridge edition), section 3 THE RELIGIOUS LIFE, by Nietzsche, and couldn't help relate it to My Life as a Latter-Day "Saint." I thought I would share these excerpts for other's recovery from Mormonism:

137: ... man prays to one part of himself as a god and also finds it necessary to diabolize the rest.

138:

... once man has been brought into a state of extraordinary tension, he can decide as easily to take frightful revenge as to make a frightful break with his need for revenge. Under the influence of the powerful emotion, he wants in any event what is great, powerful, enormous, and if he notices by chance that to sacrifice his own self satisfies as well or better than to sacrifice the other person, then he chooses that. ... Mankind had to be educated through long habituation to the idea that there is something great in self-denial, and not only in revenge; a divinity that sacrifices itself was the strongest and most effective symbol of this kind of greatness. The triumph over the enemy hardest to conquer, the sudden mastery of an emotion: that is how this denial appeared; and to this extent it counted as the height of morality. In truth, it has to do with the exchange of one idea for another, while the heart remains at the same pitch, the same volume. Men who have sobered up and are resting from an emotion no longer understand the morality of those moments, but the admiration of all who witnessed in them supports these men; pride consoles them, when the emotion and the understanding for their deed have faded. Thus those acts of self-denial are basically not moral either, insofar as they are not done strictly with regard for other people; rather the other person simply offers the tense heart an opportunity to relieve itself, by that self-denial.

139

In some respects, the ascetic too is trying to make life easy for himself, usually by completely subordinating himself to the will of another or to a comprehensive law and ritual, rather in the way the Brahman leaves absolutely nothing to his own determination, but determines himself at each minute by a holy precept. This subordination is a powerful means of becoming master of oneself; one is occupied, that is, free of boredom, and yet has no willful or passionate impulse; after a deed is completed, there is no feeling of responsibility, and therefore no agony of regret. One has renounced his own will once and for all, and this is easier than to renounce it only occasionally, just as it is easier to give up a desire entirely than to moderate it. If we remember man's, present attitude towards the state, we find there too that an unqualified obedience is more convenient than a qualified one. The saint, then, makes his life easier by that complete abandonment of his personality, and a man is fooling himself when he admires that phenomenon as the most heroic feat of morality. In any event, it is harder to assert one’s personality without vacillation or confusion than to free oneself from it in the manner described; it also takes much more intellect and thought.

140

After having discovered in many of the more inexplicable actions, expressions of that pleasure in emotion per se, I would also discern in self-contempt (which is one of the signs of saintliness) and likewise in self-tormenting behavior (starvation and scourges, dislocation of limbs, simulated madness) a means by which those natures combat the general exhaustion of their life-force (of their nerves): they use the most painful stimulants and horrors in order to emerge, for a time at least, from that dullness and boredom into which their great spiritual indolence and that subordination to a foreign will described above have so often let them sink.

141

The most common means that the ascetic and saint uses in order to make his life more bearable and entertaining consists in occasionally waging war and alternating victory and defeat. To do this he needs an opponent, and finds him in the so-called “inner enemy." He exploits particularly his tendency to vanity, ambition, and love of power, as well as his sensual desires, to allow himself to see his life as a continuing battle and himself as the battlefield on which good and evil spirits struggle, with alternating results.

142

... Sometimes the saint exercises a defiance against himself, which is a close relative of the love of power, and which gives even the most solitary man a feeling of power; sometimes his bloated sensibility leaps from the longing to give his passions free rein to the longing to make them collapse like wild stallions, powerfully driven by a proud soul. Sometimes he wants the complete cessation of all bothersome, tormenting, irritating feelings , a waking sleep, a continuing repose in the lap of a dull, animal-like or vegetative indolence; sometimes he seep out battle and provokes it in himself, because boredom holds its yawning visage up to him. He scourges his self-deification with self-contempt and cruelty; he takes pleasure in the wild uprising of his desires, and in the sharp pain of sin, even in the idea of being lost; he knows how to set a trap for his emotions, for his most extreme love of power, for example, so that it changes over into the emotion of the most extreme humiliation, and his agitated soul is pulled to pieces by this contrast.

Whoa. Thanks for posting. Perfect over morning coffee.

This distillation from Nietzsche is rather like a strong drink drunk too fast. What a bombardment for a barely waking mind. (I just typed mine instead of mind by accident and then thought that mine as in a deep cavern full of rich ore isn't a bad substitute--serendipitous error.)

But anyway. Somehow all I read ties into introvert versus extroverts --who often claim to be introverts. As I have read some treatises the Introvert draws strength from within and the extrovert draws strength (needs and feeds) from others.

So why does one subordinate himself to the will of others while another chooses his own path? Why does one use introspection as a tool and another will claim to the end to be right, but, through self-denial of the self while submitting to a dogma laid out by others. That is the crux of what I am reading here from Nietzsche and I find it fascinating as it related to Mormonism; to my family, yea, even to the Insurrection on Congress.

Does religious life become a contest of who can self-deny the most? And, consider themselves glorified in denial? I think so. The denial being the goal, not that which is being denied?


This though hit me hard, THIS:

"The most common means that the ascetic and saint uses in order to make his life more bearable and entertaining consists in occasionally waging war and alternating victory and defeat. To do this he needs an opponent, and finds him in the so-called “inner enemy."

I have said this myself often. It all started with God. He had to have an opponent. Without Satan there was no story, no purpose. The hosts of heaven would have nothing to do more than float around like Jellyfish. Lucifer was God's greatest achievement. Jesus was just a necessary plot device.

We all need an opponent too. That is where all gets complicated. I wish Nietzsche had kept going.

Well. I seem to be too awake now. Which is the opposite of woke. :)

I agree with what you wrote. As an introverted intuitive type myself I resonate with Nietzsche quite a bit.

You wrote, "Does religious life become a contest of who can self-deny the most? And, consider themselves glorified in denial? I think so. "

I totally agree, the modern Mormon church is all about self denial and feeling proud in your piety. I think Nauvoo Mormonism was different. Especially among Joseph Smith's inner elite where there was more expressed a nietzschean Will To Power.

A Poem for Mormons.

The saint exercises defiance against self,
which is a close relative of the love of power,
which gives even the most solitary Mormon a feeling of power;

Bloated sensibility leaps
from longing to give passions
freedom powerfully driven by a proud soul.

Sometimes the saint wants a waking sleep,
a continuing repose in the lap of a dull,
animal-like indolence;

Sometimes the saint wants battle and provokes self indulgence, because boredom holds its yawning visage up to him.

The saint scourges self-deification with self-contempt
and takes pleasure in the wild uprising of desires.

In the sharp pain of sin,
even the idea of being damned to lesser glory;
the saint knows how to set a trap for emotions.

The saint's most extreme love of power changes over
into the emotion of the most extreme humiliation
and the agitated soul is gloriously pulled to pieces
by this contrast.

Awesome, I like it.

Nietzsche was a prose poet.

"the agitated soul is gloriously pulled to pieces"

Wonderful.

The question raises . . .

If you crave something, lust after it, but you decide it is wrong, and find the strength to deny, then does the pleasure derived from the denial exceed the would-have-been pleasure of the the temptation had you given in? Does denial soon become your drug of choice? More seductive than any sin? Gifting you the superiority you crave?

All about from what and how you get your fix. Mainlining piety.

OR is the denial an escape because you knew you weren't going to get what you really wanted anyway? Denial as justification for not "going for it." Denial as a salve.

I can always interpret Nietzsche a million ways. I won't deny it.

You, my friend, are interpreting Nietzsche accurately. He says, and I agree, that pain can be a very attractive thing for humans. The drug addict, the person who keeps returning to an abusive relationship, the person who denies his personal character and needs because society insists upon it: these are all illustrations of the Biblical allegory of the dog returning to its vomit and the pig to its mire.

Nietzsche's superman was he who could shed the bonds of such painful compulsion and walk free with no self-abnegation. The concept is one of the pillars of his philosophy.

She who could shed the bonds of such painful compulsion and walk free with no self-abnegation is a world I want to live in free from the bonds of patriarchy.

And patriarchy is just one of many artificial "models" of human values and behavior that constrain and impoverish the individual soul.

That's where I disagree with Zoner. Particularly in the other thread he advocates viewing the world through "Nietzschean lenses" and aspires to the reinterpretation of Mormonism in Nietzschean terms.

But why? Why insist on updating or modifying existing models of repression rather than starting de novo? As you know, even Nietzsche didn't know what the superman would be in any specific terms. He fooled around with Jesus--the "idiot," he said, referring to Dostoevsky's usage--and then Dionysus, and finally Zarathustra.

Did he know much about Zoroastrianism? There's nothing in his writings to suggest much familiarity at all. Jesus, Dionysus, Zarathustra: these were symbols, names attached to the idea of emotional and spiritual independence. There is very little doctrinal or mythological content to Thus Spake Zarathustra; the focus is on the imagery of the unconstrained soul.

It is therefore a misreading of the great philosopher to say that he wanted people to update Christianity or Mormonism or patriarchy or anything else. Nietzsche wanted people to abandon such external models and stare into the (terrifying) abyss of truly independent being.

To put this in its simplest permutation, Nietzsche would have laughed at the adolescent girl who felt she had to choose which category of LGTBQ+ she belonged in. He would have encouraged her to follow her heart and her instincts and be who she really is regardless of existing role models.

*That* is the super(wo)man, the person who lives purely and joyously among others who may be too weak to embrace genuine identity.

To be clear, in the other thread [https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2399774,2399801#msg-2399801] I was not advocating viewing *the world* through "Nietzschean lenses" as you said. And I don't "aspires to the reinterpretation of Mormonism in Nietzschean terms." I actually see the world through multiple perspectives.

What I was trying to convey, and perhaps I was imprecise, is that if we take the nietzschean categories of a generative versus degenerative and put Mormonism and Catholicism/Protestantism on that comparative Niestchean scale, then as Peter Coviello points out as I mentioned in the other thread, Mormonism presents a more positive/generative view of the body than does Catholicism/Protestantism.

I am not "insisting on updating or modifying existing models of repression rather than starting de novo," any more than a secular reformed Jew insists on updating or modifying the Hebrew Bible with its repressive elements. Many secular cultural Jews simply reinterpret the text to make it work for them without retaining the arcaic repressive elements, meanwhile feeling connected to their cultural heritage. That is all I was getting at as a *possible option* in one's Recovery.

Another example, we can value Jefferson's idea of "inalienable rights" without being a deist, nor owning slaves as he did.

But you are still discussing your personal liberation in terms of others' role models. That's the opposite of what the Superman is supposed to do.

I get what you are saying about you thinking that I am 'still discussing my personal liberation in terms of others' role models." And yoy say "that's the opposite of what the Superman is supposed to do." I would have my role model is Batman, ha, ha, just adding some levity. You mistake me for a nietzschean, for example I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche's attitudes on slavery, democracy,
human rights, women, etc. We can value parts and aspects of a philosopher and philosophy without rejecting all of it, right?

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can value parts and
> aspects of a philosopher and philosophy without
> rejecting all of it, right?

Absolutely.

---------------
> I'm not a big fan of
> Nietzsche's attitudes on slavery, democracy,
> human rights, women, etc.

You could add Jews to that list. But the point is that Nietzsche spoke in metaphor and allegory. He was opposed to anti-semitism, dictatorship; and he supported human rights. All of those things are evident in his lifestyle, his political actions, and his rejection at great personal cost of bigots like Wagner.

What I'm suggesting is that you are taking literally things meant figuratively. Just as he used Dionysus as a metaphor without actually favoring human sacrifice, Nietzsche figuratively portrayed Jews and Christianity as representations of intellectual slavery and democracy as a surrogate for demagoguery. Remember: his greatest enemy was the the herd animal, the intuitive slave, the person who surrendered his moral judgment to the populist leader and the group.

To put the point more baldly, Nietzsche did not really think the next great moral leader would emerge from an ancient Persian religion whose adherents had dwindled in number to a scattering of believers in Iran and a handful in Mumbai.

Where am I "taking literally things meant figuratively."?? I ask because I don't think I have done that, and in fact I agree with everything you said. I'm aware of Nietzsche's use of metaphor, for example as he makes clear he used Zarathustra as a character because the historical Zarathustra's religion posited a metaphysical Good versus Evil and an end times apocalypse, so he presents his Zarathustra as the one to reverse what he himself started.

These are your words.

> I'm not a big fan of
> Nietzsche's attitudes on slavery, democracy,
> human rights, women, etc.

Let's be specific.

Is it your belief that Nietzsche advocated human slavery?

Is it your belief that Nietzsche opposed constitutional democracy?

Is it your belief that Nietzsche opposed human rights for minorities?

Because any of those beliefs would be inaccurate.

Those are my words yes, but your words are *not* my words.

Your words make you seem either naive or morally reprobate. I assumed the former rather than the latter but you took issue with my characterization. I therefore asked you specific questions so you could clarify your views.

It's fine if you don't want to do that, but in those circumstances we are still left with your original statement and its two possible interpretations, neither of which is flattering.

I prefer Nietzsche's term, an Immoralist to reprobate, and aren't we all a little naive, perhaps as Nietzsche puts it, "sumpter asses"? I guess I'm not interested in clarifying my views to you, sorry, … and wouldn't that make you happy since it would make me Superman! After all, I'm all about pleasing the ladies, assuming you are a woman by your name.

"... neither of which is flattering," lol, you crack me up. A true Super(wo)man, not! lol.

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I prefer Nietzsche's term, an Immoralist to
> reprobate,

That's just another misunderstanding of the philosopher, whose "immoralist" is one who does not subscribe the morality of those around him while personally seeing chattel slavery, anti-semitism, and demagogic leadership as reprobate and condemning in both print and word those who hold those views.

Did you miss that nuance in your vast and erudite studies? Did you fail to grasp that Nietzsche's repudiation of existing moral systems was in fact a repudiation of bigotry and the herd instinct? That he was in fact promoting a higher and more universal morality?


--------------------
> and aren't we all a little naive,
> perhaps as Nietzsche puts it, "sumpter asses"?

Some more so than others. Failing to see the distinctions between "immoralist" and "immoral" in Nietzsche's writings and life, for instance, is assuredly asinine.


-------------------
> I
> guess I'm not interested in clarifying my views to
> you, sorry,

No loss. I thought when you first started writing about Nietzsche that you would be an interesting person befittingly interested in discussing the great man's thought. But no, when pressed you'd rather take your ball and scurry home.


------------------
> … and wouldn't that make you happy
> since it would make me Superman!

Nietzsche engaged with others; he debated; he wrote to be read and spoke to understand and influence whereas you think the Superman hides in a closet where no one can ask him to clarify his thoughts.

Yours is hardly an Ubermensch, is he? In fact, he's not much of a mensch at all.


------------------
> After all, I'm
> all about pleasing the ladies,

In my experience men who feel the need to say that are compensating.


-----------------
> . . .assuming you are a
> woman by your name.

Why would my gender matter? Does it bother you that a woman might understand Nietzsche better than you?


-----------------
> "... neither of which is flattering," lol, you
> crack me up. A true Super(wo)man, not! lol.

There's that overcompensation again.

Listen, Zoner, be on your merry way. I hope you find the Nietzschean Mormonism you said you pursue. After all, it would be a mistake to throw out your baby out with the bathwater.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2021 12:32AM by Lot's Wife.

Okay I will throw you a bone, I have no interest in giving you attention because you seem like you are very needy for attention. I brought up Nietzsche on the periphery in my points, and I could tell that in both threads you were so anxious to jump in to show off how smart and right you were regarding Nietzscheanism. You also come off as a Cathy Newman type ("So what you're saying is …"), so no matter what I say you will twist it and misrepresent me incorrectly as you have already done in multiple comments, creating strawman after strawman. No thanks! Then you engage in childish name-calling, not sexy. So I'm not taking the bait.

You have started multiple threads on Nietzsche: for you to argue now that he is "peripheral" is as stupid as it is transparent.

Likewise, I hardly twisted or misrepresented what you said. By asking you to clarify what you meant, I was doing precisely the opposite. I was treating you with respect.

"Cathy Newman type. . . not sexy. . ." There it is again: the gender-based insecurity.

Lol, really, you actually *wanted* to have an adult conversation with me about Nietzsche? This is how you goat men into a dialogue? By throwing a tantrum when you don't get attention.

I'm going to keep it real with you, you come off as a Nietzche fangirl, wannabe super(wo)man, like his sister you come off as the controller of Nietzsche's Archives with "scholarly inclinations "... Here what your boyfriend Nietzsche said about your type, "When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.” Nietzsche said it, not me. Take it up with him.

You come off as a type A, bossy, argumentative "know it all," Kathy Newman type. I dated a woman like you once, uber masculine type, very unattractive personality, unfeminine. I broke up with her after dating only a couple of weeks and the clouds parted and the sun came out. A friend later said she married a beta male and wears the pants in the relationship. So I know you're type, my spidey senses are tingling.

I know your type so well, you act like a rude-man then demand to be treated like a lady, and then when the man calls you on it you pull out your whole you just need to scurry off because you're not man enough for me and are compensating, insecure, and all that other stuff, so boring.

You're the kind of needy, bossy, know it all that hijacks threads. Everyone else was having a pleasant time having an adult conversation before you trolled the thread being needy for attention, "Look at me, pay attention to me, you're right blank about Noetetche (I'm so smart and so special), your wrong Zoner, look at me, so smart am I, I am I pretty now, daddy look at me, daddy you're not paying attention to me! Tantrim time: you're a reprobate, assanine! Look at me big daddy Z(B)oner, I hate you, I want you. "Real men talk to me after I throw a tantrum," Zoner look, look at me. You're compensating, Zoner. Daddy look at me, look at me! Uck, so unattractive. Stage 4 Clinger.

I guarantee you will want more attention after this comment. You're probably going to write five paragraphs of a full-on tantrum. You are going to pull out every third-wave feminist card you can think of. I'm going to be a chauvinist Pig, insecure, can't handle a sassy lady. On and on and on. So boring. I will leave you with words from your boyfriend to ponder:

"The happiness of man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: he wills. Behold, just now the world became perfect! thus thinks every woman when she obeys out of entire love. And women must obey and find a depth for her surface. Surface is the disposition of woman: a mobile, stormy film over shallow water. Man's disposition, however, is deep; his river roars in subterranean caves: woman feels his strength but does not comprehend it."
—Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

It took seven paragraphs for you to say I'm going to pen "five paragraphs of a full-on tantrum?"

"Noetetche" would not be impressed. He might even accuse you of having succumbed to an "assanine" "tantrim" or, heaven forbid, serial solecisms. But that would just reflect his inferior intellect.

I wish you good luck in your quest to replace "Brighamaite" with "Noetetchean" Mormonism. Some might say that you've missed the philosopher's point, seeking in your slave mentality to replace one shepherd with another. You and I, however, know the truth.

Here's a fourth paragraph.

My heavens, you were right! It took me five paragraphs. You're a prophet as well as a philologist!

"I know you are but what am I!" Neener, neener, neener, … really. Seriously, how old are you? Yeeesh, you act like a kindergartener. Like the Energizer Bunny of DRAMA. She keeps going and going and going, tit for tat, tit for tat. Total energy vampire and a Debbie Downer.

Daddy look at me! I hate you daddy. I hate you, I love you, I hate you, I love you. Please respond to me. Please respond to me. He commented, oh, oh, uhhhhhhh, relief, more attention!

Next second: Give me *more* attention daddy. Daddy Zoner you didn't spell perfectly like I do! I have pretty and proper, perfect spelling daddy, I'm the patron saint of spelling. LOL. You're silly, but hilarious.

I know you can't walk away, too much of a Stage 4 Clinger. You secretly are attracted to my intellect. You can't walk away. You're addicted to me. Your words are just a shallow outer shell of the depth of your underlying desire. You hate me and you can't stop writing about me because you can't stop thinking of me. Prove me wrong by ignoring me. You can't do it.

I think it's someone else that is seeking the attention in this post.

I'm just glad somebody else in this forum is on the receiving end of Lot's Wife's wrath for daring to bring up Nietzsche (or Lao Tzu or Einstein or Kaku or the list goes on.)

She does the same thing to me, accuses me of not being able to read or of being too stupid to understand anything, because I'm not the spelling marm she is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2021 10:11PM by schrodingerscat.

1. It's "goad" into a dialogue. Not "goat."

2. Lot's Wife is trying to have an intelligent discussion on Nietzsche, YOU'RE the one throwing a tantrum and insulting folks, Zoner.

3. Nobody's going to accuse you of being a chauvinist, Zoner. Your post and "she-woman-man-hater" strawman condemn you more than any accusation. All that's missing is a "back in the kitchen" and you'd sound like every incel loser ever. FYI, I'm male.

4. From what Nietzsche I've read (not a lot, I'm afraid), the Übermensch creates new values and morals in the face of nihilism and the death of God (no Sky-Daddy to tell you what's right and wrong in an indifferent universe with no obvious meaning. For morality and ethics, this can be summed up as "all right, motherfuckers, you're on your own"). You cherry-pick Nietzsche quotes as an excuse to claim you're better than other people. That's not being an Übermensch, that's being an Arschloch.

I may not agree with everything Lot's Wife posts and her views on Nietzsche can go over my head sometimes, but at least I don't pretend to know more than her. And I may go into a rant, but I can do it without sounding like Archie Bunker. Try it, Zoner, you might like it.

"Lot's Wife is trying to have an intelligent discussion on Nietzsche, YOU'RE the one throwing a tantrum and insulting folks, Zoner."

I humbly disagree ookami.

I was minding my own business and she came after me for attention. But I can see that I'm now being pigeonholed as the big bad male chauvinist or whatever. Total lose-lose going on at this point.

Respect is a two-way street though. So if you want to be mediator I'd be happy to have a mature adult intellectual conversation with anyone. But I refuse to play Cathy Newman Games and have everything I say twisted so I spend all my energy defending mischaracterizations and strawman set ups.

And I'm also curious why you ookami are holding me up to a higher moral standard but not her. Can you really read her words and say what you're saying without a clear double standard? You want me to play by a certain gentlemanly etiquette while she's not playing by lady etiquette, and if I take a manly stance and refuse to deal with Cathy Newman shenanigans I'm an incel and all these other silly words. Then when she says and does what she does that is perfectly fine. What gives? Why the she can do no wrong and I can do no right?

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Respect is a two-way street though.

THAT'S why Lot's and I are chewing you out, guy. You call her a "Stage 4 clinger" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) and claim that she's pointing out the flaws in your logic because she's "secretly attracted to your intellect" (*stifled laughter* yeah, keep telling yourself that), and "whatabout" when you get called out for it. You're not a victim, you're a jerk playing one.

BTW, I've served with females Boatswain's Mates and grew up around farmer's kids. Your view of "manly stance" and "lady etiquette" are laughable at best.

ETA: in a nutshell, Lot's Wife has earned my respect. You haven't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2021 04:16PM by ookami.

I get it, you're protective of her. You like her. You don't like me.

Whoosh.

> I was minding my own
> business and she came
> after me for attention.


"Me thinks thou doth look in the mirror too much!"

--Random A. House, publisher

>>I dated a woman like you once, uber masculine type, very unattractive personality, unfeminine. I broke up with her after dating only a couple of weeks and the clouds parted and the sun came out. A friend later said she married a beta male and wears the pants in the relationship.

Wow. It looks like you have a problem when the little woman doesn't defer to your alpha male personality, eh? You appear to have no idea how revealing this is about you.

Lot's Wife knows Nietzsche.

Zoner knows Lot's Wife.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2021 01:19AM by jay.

For the reader to understand what we mean by the other thread see this link: https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2399774,2399801#msg-2399801

To put a little more meat on the bones of my argument and keeping with the subject of this thread about Nietzsche pointing out the problem with sin-based purity-seeking religions and it's internal turmoil it causes on the body ... a non-traditional Mormon-by-birth can value their ancestral heritage that produced what Peter Coviello called the "radiant body." See https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/13682444

Joseph Smith rejected what Nietzsche calls the despising of the body. Similar to Nietzsche, Joseph Smith was a materialist. Just as Nietzsche could only believe in a God who could dance, Joseph Smith could only believe in a sexual God of body parts and passions, as opposed to the Catholic and Protestant god without body parts or passions. As Coviello points out in his book, Joseph Smith produced a religious philosophy at odds with the puritanical despising of the body.

So, can we both criticize Joseph Smith for his faults ("sins" if you like) and foibles but also value what he produced *philosophically*? As Sunstone puts it, there are many ways to Mormon. Joseph Smith himself changed his views multiple times. Kirtland Mormonism is not the same as Nauvoo Mormonism. Brighmaite Mormonism is not the same as Emma Smith/Joseph Smith III driven Community of Christ, your American philosophy and how you interpret America's past will probably be different from mine, yet we probably both consider ourselves American. I'm simply playing with the idea of rather than completely hating and discarding everything my LDS ancestors passed on to me philosophically, maybe retaining at least some of it in the form of transfiguring it through *my own perspectival lenses*, using Nietzsche or Peter Coviello, or Joseph Campbell, or whatever.

What is wrong with that? Is that not an option for exMormons? I don't see what the big fuss is all about. Are we saying that we should do away with Sunstone and Dialogue and Reformed Jews and Progressive Christians and only have the dark contrast of Fundamentalists verses Atheist?

It is like ignoring Nietzsche's genealogy of morality and subscribing to something(Mormonism) instead of understanding that the onus is on you or you just follow someone else like a slave in master's clothing.

I totally agree Elder Berry, well said. It is not about subscribing to something (Mormonism) and following someone else like a slave in master's clothing. Nor is it about taking a reactionary position and describing things only in terms of absolute evil or absolute good. To appreciate one's Mormon heritage mythologically is to go beyond Good and Evil, to appreciate what Peter Coviello calls the concept of the radiant body. See: Make Yourselves Gods: Sex, secularism, and the radiant body of early Mormonism By Peter Coviello at https://www.ias.edu/ideas/make-yourselves-gods

Whoosh.

Golly! OP sure reminds me of another poster with a Nietzschean, authority figure, misogynist fixation. Could it be?

So that's what he looks like! Sophie would approve.

Just don't eat the french fries. There's no telling where they've been.

From my brief reading of his ideas I think he is just like many Mormons who are folk of the large Mormon fringe. The September 6 were such Mormons. The fringe folk take their Mormonism hard and with this bitter cup attempt to drink Mormon eternal life. Peter Coviello is the most secularly seeming Mormon I've seen of these folk. But it isn't surprising that Mormons who love reading D. Michael Quinn' s Early Mormonism and the Magic World View but aren't completely taken by the magic would also want to find some kind of synthesis of Mormonism's founding theologies (thesis) and secular intellectual humanistic antithesis.

Peter Coviello is not a secularly seeming Mormon in anyway, dude. Why don't you try and learn something about him and more about his book before discarding it so friviously. Do you have any respect for a professor's career and their freedom to explore theories and ideas? Professor Coviello specializes in American literature and queer theory. The guy cannot be any less "Mormon." And I thought the BYU Mormon apologist response to his book was bad. You as an ex Mormon should know better.

My response to the haters on here is the same as Christopher Hitchens:

https://images.app.goo.gl/62bAf3JBEp3vuovJ8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

So if someone doesn't agree with you, that's the same as hating you? And flipping-off said person is your go-to response...?

I have to admit that such simplicity does have an appeal. Maybe it's me who has made life too complicated?

So now you're comparing yourself to Hitch?
That's rich!

He was an asshole, IMHO.
I wouldn't brag about being anything like Hitch, unless you're proud of being an asshole who defended the War in Iraq, which, as it turns out, was started based upon (surprise, surprise) false pretenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5gOP2B6TUc

Of course, he was fed the same lie as the rest of us, but at least we didn't go out there and defend Cheney's War to enrich his former Military Industrial complex employers.

I stick with my advice about joining a bowling league. You need to spend some time getting to know normal people with normal lives. Get a copy of The Big Lebowski while you’re at it.

T least you’re not an anti-vaxx ranter, and watching you try to go all mansplainer on LW was … interesting. Try not to flame out in under three days.

Speaking of flaming out, does anyone here know why sourdough French bread comes out of the toaster hotter than hell?

Shame on you! You made me think of sourdough French toast, but the kind you dip in egg batter and pan fry, butter, and then add maple syrup...

If I hurt myself making this for dinner, on thy head be it!

I don't know what it is about french bread. I put some in my toaster at its usual setting and the damn stuff set off my smoke alarm. I'm in a high rise, so that causes a pretty big stir. :-/

No other bread has ever set off my smoke alarm.

:) The Dude abides.

Great advice
at any age.

misplaced



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2021 10:20PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I was hoping for some actual intellectual stimulation and some back and forth and maybe even changing my mind on something (without Kathy Newman behavior) and one-on-one engagement with some of the fellas and "ladies" (there was but one lady though, blackcoatsdaughter, who I had the honor of exchanging an adult exchange with, free from the mob); but as for the others, like a gang of McConkie Mormons shunning a questioner, you formed your own mob. This proves to me that human nature is human nature, whether it's in Mormon culture or in pockets of exMormon culture. Doesn't really surprise me though, our closest relatives are chimpanzees and they will form raiding parties and go rip off the limbs of other chimps. Never underestimate the gang or the mob.

This is a waste of my time though at this point. I haven't been on social media for nearly a decade, so this *was* fruitful for me. It's why I prefer to talk to people face-to-face because they act less cowardly and mobbish. I am an alpha male, yes, as someone said, so I know people act differently over a computer screen than face-to-face looking up at me. This just further demonstrates that.

It's clear that I've been framed as the enemy for my alternative thoughts and returning the same energy I was given by a Cathy Newman imitator, which led to a gang of White Knights whining over my lack of etiquette while ignoring their queen bee's lack of etiquette. Followed by basically saying I'm an alpha male chauvinist or whatnot, which nowadays I consider a compliment, and then someone from the Mob of White Knights referring to their Mormon ancestor as a bitch (if Peter Coviello was right and she was exercising some form of feminine empowerment). The Force of hypocrisy is strong with this crowd.

Even a mighty bear knows when to walk away from a diseased hornet's nest. So buzz, buzz, away.

It would be imprudent to continue to deal with such a faceless mob. Better to engage in a verbal duel where there is honor not mob rule.

Nevertheless, I'm thankful for this exchange. It taught me a lot. I had a lot of fun. Y'all made me chuckle quite a bit. Even my enemy is a friend in that I can learn from him. I enjoy a good tussle. But all things must come to an end. Call me arrogant (I know you will) but the saddest thing is it's *your loss,* and a greater loss to those who were silently lurking yet curious about alternative points of view and different options.

My parting thoughts, which I reckon y'all will get off on tearing to shreds like a band of chimps, which I enjoyed writing as much as throwing food to vultures; that ye may pick at my artistry. So here is a Nietzscheanish poem for you all to tear to shreds:

Oh ye hairless bastards whom I love for your bestial revelry,
Ye holy hyenas, biting into my laughing lion self,
requesting I extend a paw while swiping me with claws,
Ye hypocrites! who'd be Pharisees if ye could. Bravo! I applaud your ravenous desire to tear into my flesh,
my faceless persona a target for the dogs in your cellar
Let the wild beasts in you all eat your fill
A pound of flesh the mob always craves
Ye think yourselves cruel in your mobbish festivities,
But I'm not upset that you mob attacked me,
I'm upset that from now on I don't respect you,
And can't engage in an intellectual tussle with the adults at the table,
For the madness of crowds destroys the wise interlocutor inside thee and among thee
Yet I love it still, tear me apart that I may resurrect anew
Growing stronger, greater, as your silly insults and childish put-downs invigorate me,
Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger!

And a farewell gift of quotes in the spirit of the Zarathustran gift-giving virtue, as it pertains to our exchange, enjoy:

“When Zarathustra had spoken these words, he again looked at the people, and was silent. "There they stand," said he to his heart; "there they laugh: they do not understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

“To see others suffer does one good, to make others suffer even more: this is a hard saying but an ancient, mighty, human, all-too-human principle [....] Without cruelty there is no festival.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals

“Not that you lied to me but that I no longer believe you has shaken me.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche

"And mine enemies amongst them! How I now love every one unto whom I may but speak! Even mine enemies pertain to my bliss.

And when I want to mount my wildest horse, then doth my spear always help me up best: it is my foot's ever ready servant:--

The spear which I hurl at mine enemies! How grateful am I to mine enemies that I may at last hurl it!
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

`At least be my enemy!' -- thus speaks the true reverence, that does not venture to ask for friendship.

If you want a friend, you must also be willing to wage war for him: and to wage war, you must be capable of being an enemy.

You should honour even the enemy in your friend. Can you go near to your friend without going over to him?

In your friend you should possess your best enemy. Your heart should feel closest to him when you oppose him.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.”
― Sun Tzu

So with that, a fond farewell.

You flamed out in under three days. Kinda saw that coming.

You did crank out over 10,000 words in 3 days, which may be a record, though I am not sure if I should count the same farewell post put at the end of both your threads.

You sound bright enough, so good luck in your future endeavors. Remember - bowling. Buy a ball that fits, you can rent shoes. They are less important.

And buy "The Big Lebowski".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2021 10:33PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Hasta la proxima.