Been out of the Mormon church for about 15 years, I resigned, and most of that time I have spent as an an agnostic-nontheist dabbling in secular Buddhism and Progressive forms of Christianity, attending an atheist meet up for a couple years and basically avoiding all organized religion and seeing most churches as worse than Mormonism ever was for me, in my view. For example ,I think it is child abuse to tell kids they're going to burn in hell for Thoughtcrimes. And even though I'm a nontheist in philisophical temperament, anytime I have entertained the concept of God the Mormon view makes a whole lot more sense than the other Chrisitan sects. Going to these other churches feels like an orphan choosing between being adopted by a household where there is a single dad and celibate son (the Trinity), and a heaven composed of all male angels, compared to a two-parent household with a mother and father (LDS view) and angels as male and female.

I often take on a worldview and play around with it a little bit, like putting on a hat seeing if it fits. So I have tried on for example Stoicism for a time.

I don't know where I heard this but I heard a woman leader at Sunstone on a podcast say she was an "Independent Mormon." And I believe a Sunstone slogan is there are many ways to Mormon, or something like that. I then ran across some blog posts of people who are not active LDS but use Mormonism as a personal philosophy. I have been playing around with this idea. I mean it is my cultural heritage after all, in other words I would not be here if it wasn't for my polyamist ancestors. And deep down whether I want to admit it or not I am still a "cultural" Mormon.

So is there a way to make it work for myself mythologically? Or should I completely eradicate it from my vocabulary and thought world? For example, if a Mormon relative would bring up a Book of Mormon character like say Nephi during a conversation about any topic, I remember having a phobic reaction and just getting irritated and going into a tirade about the non-historical nature of the Book of Mormon. But I have kind of mellowed out since then and can see the value of the BofM stories "mythologically," as Joseph Campbell talks about.

These are the questions I'm asking myself lately. I have been reading a lot of Nietzsche and I see a lot of parallels to his ideas in early Mormonism, especially Nauvoo Mormonism.

To be clear, I'm not advocating Mcconkie Mormonism nor the current Correlated/Chapel Church system. But I'm wondering if anyone has dabbled in making Mormonism (the mythos or using it as a Life Philosophy that is) work for you individually and philosophically? This would clearly involve cherry-picking just as an atheistic Reformed Jew would cherry-pick aspects of Judaism that worked for them. Obviously I can see the problems with this, (tithing scriptures, priesthood stuff, the temple, etc.), so it would definitely involve a very individualistic approach as I plan on never going to the temple again nor giving money to the Institutional Mormon church unless they changed many things. So my thought experiment would not involve church/chapel attendance but treating Mormon scripture as a kind of Life Philosophy of sorts from a strictly individual post-Chapel perspective.

I've been playing around with the idea of seeing Mormonism as an evolutionary trajectory from Pauline-Protestantism to something more similar to Stoicism and Nietzscheanism; for example its Protestant phase with the 1830 Book of Mormon to the 1835 lectures on faith, to then Joseph Smith evolving away from Protestantism with a more Swedwnborgian, spiritual-materialism and a progressive theology in the 1840s.

I personally see 1840s Mormonism as a kind of Muscular Christianity with many Nietzschean elements. I see Joseph Smith moving away from Augustinian Calvinist Protestantism and towards something more Nietzschean in flavor.

So I have been playing around with maintaining an appreciation of my cultural heritage and an apprecation of my anestors by valuing the Nauvoo Mormon era "philosophically," that is valuing Joseph Smith's big ego in him having the balls to stand up to the Protestant hell fire fear-mongering bullies of the time and moving toward a form of Christian Universalism and a more generative and muscular form of Christianity, which also did away with eternal torture for Thoughtcrimes with the three degrees of glory and the idea of being punished for one's own sins and not for Adam's transgression (hence the rejection of Augustines's original sin, etc).

Anyway just wondering what y'all thought.

I don't see the point. But I'm not interested in identifying as any kind of Mormon I suppose. Some may label me as an exMormon, but I don't want that either.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see the point. But I'm not interested in
> identifying as any kind of Mormon I suppose. Some
> may label me as an exMormon, but I don't want that
> either.

Thanks for the response. If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious what you do identify as?

I'm wondering if it's possible to not identify as anyting. Leaving the church it seems to me that there is this need as a western person to take on some kind of philosophical identity. Or maybe it's just me.

I do have some ex-mormon friends and relatives who simply left Mormonism and are basically atheist in their actions and never talk philosophy or religion and have no existential angst at all. I guess I would say their identity is simply a human being and an American. I kind of envy them in a way for not being caught up at all in the need for an identity of any kind. All the power to them. To each his own.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see the point. But I'm not interested in
> identifying as any kind of Mormon I suppose. Some
> may label me as an exMormon, but I don't want that
> either.

I guess part of the reason I am entertaining this idea and questioning it is because, like you mentioned, I don't like identifying as an exMormon. I don't like this reactionary position as an "ex." I mean there are things I don't like about America but I wouldn't call myself an exAmerican. Before I ever had a choice in the matter, from birth I was a fish in the bowl called Mormonism, swimming in its worldview and vocabulary and its deeply ingrained into my synapses whether I like it or not. So I guess I've just grown tired of reacting against it and have been entertaining a way to make it "my own" and empower me at the same time.

None. I've said atheist in the past. And defended the idea in another thread today.

But I have no religious identity and I prefer that idea more and more. I eschew the category.

Why does a person need to identify as any specific thing or through someone else's lens?

I don't see the need for that, but maybe some do. What exactly is the goal here?

My question exactly.

Why not let the organism define itself from within, with no attempt at rationalization at all? There would be many fewer teen suicides that way.

Personal identity should not be something one chooses from a shelf at Walmart.

>> Personal identity should not be something one chooses from a shelf at Walmart.<<

So you're saying I can get a personal identity at Walmart? Good to know. I'll be leaving now for an hour or so. PS, you might want to let EOD know too. With his mileage, he must be due for a change. :)

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're saying I can get a personal identity at
> Walmart?

Well yes, and it is guaranteed to fit you just as well as the Walmart golf pants.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personal identity should not be something one
> chooses from a shelf at Walmart.

When we get life from there it is hard not to want to.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does a person need to identify as any specific
> thing or through someone else's lens?
>
> I don't see the need for that, but maybe some do.
> What exactly is the goal here?

The goal? I thought I stated "my" goal (not anyone elses) but I will try and make it more clear. The goal would be to move from a reactionary position to one of transfiguration. For example, our bodies are built from our evolutionary past, as our organism simply adapted former systems in new ways. There is a lot of talk of gene-meme co-evolution, but I won't get into that cuz I don't fully understand it. But I do know that the memeplex we inherited from childhood can't be magically extracted like a tumor. I think this is part of the reason that when one leaves Mormonism it is such a negative existential experience (at least it was for me). It's not like leaving a college fraternity, for example. If you grew up on the language and stories of Mormonism, it's deeply ingrained. So I spent a lot of time in a reactionary position in a negative stance of debunking it, rejecting it, attacking it. Spending so much time on that squandered a lot of my inner power. So I have been entertaining the idea of sublimating my unconscious inheritance in a possibly more constructive way, as I describe in the beginning of this thread. I can say this that playing with the idea has made me feel more empowered rather than a victim. But that's just me. Again to each his own.

Sounds like a lot of work. Big words too! Lots of $5 and $10 words. I'll have to owe you.

I just don't believe any of it and that works for me. It also frees me up to to obsess about other things, like where to get Nietzschean lenses for my glasses.

That made me chuckle, lol. Maybe a nietzschean clip-on mustache to go with the lenses. :)

Cash only, no credit buddy. Funny, your comments made me think of the TV series True Detective season 1:

Detective Rust Cohle:
Certain linguist anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain; dulls critical thinking.

Detective Marty Hart:
Well, I don't use ten dollar words as much as you, but for a guy who sees no point in existence you sure fret about it an awful lot. And you still sound panicked.

Detective Rust Cohle:
At least I'm not racing to a red light.

Here is another way to convey my option, I'm entertaining, we are all operating through some substructure and model, the words I'm typing is English and carries with it all kinds of structures and confinement in cultural influence. Nietzsche himself was heavily influenced by Lutheranism, Schopenhauer, Wagner, and Goethe. In other words, we can't just magically be "blank canvases" any more than we can ignore our evolutionary past contained in our organic body; well Dawkinish memes have a similar effect on the body I think. When we feel disgust or repulsion by a particular smell or insect that is based on our evolutionary substructure, and so too I think that all of us who grow up Mormon as I have, have unconscious Mormon influences from our childhood growing up Mormon that is operating on a subconscious level. So in my view, rather than fight it, why not transfigure it?

We became exMormonism because a particular form of Mormonism did not work for us, and just like former Evangelical Christians, most of us former-Mormons become atheist or agnostic. But I don't think a lot of Episcopalian Christians have the same visceral counteractive reaction as many former-Evangelicals do in that you find out that many of the most outspoken anti-Christian atheists come from an Evangelical Fundamentalist background (like Dan Barker); and I don't think a person growing up in the Community of Christ would have the same reactionary position as many of us ex-mormons do. Speaking for myself, my visceral counteractive hate for Mormonism was largely a hate for Spencer W. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness and the policy of one-on-one interviews in the shaming I experienced.

Yet we were not idiots and would not have stayed in a system that was completely degenerative and harming.

When I was a kid I remember watching Rocky 4 in the movie theater, it motivated me to start doing sit-ups and lifting weights. I knew it was a movie and not real but it inspired me. Well in a similar way, is it possible to treat Mormon stories as inspiring fiction? Is there a way to criticize Joseph Smith but also admire his bravado and accomplishments from an American / Stoic / Epicurean / Nietzschean perspective? He went from a poor Farm Boy to writing a kind of American novel in order to unite his family as Dan Vogel argues, to starting his own religion, became mayor, the general of an army and ran for president. Some men have trouble getting off the couch!

So as I see it, Smith exercised his will to power; now we can apply the lens of wokeism or some other morality and judge him but we can't deny that he was a virile, somewhat dionysian/epicurean, highly masculine man with courage and adventurousness. As Bill Burr says of Arnold Schwarzenegger, he was a great man. Does that mean we can't criticize Arnold for sleeping with his maid? Of course we can, that was a dick move. Obviously Arnold should have started a religion and said I'm just imitating the Gods who are sexual too. That was a joke. But does Arnold's mistake mean that we men should hate Arnold and stop lifting weights? So can we acknowledge that Joey Smith made a lot of dickish moves, but when compared to Augustine, his philosophy was more pro-body and life-affirming?

To put it another way, words can be a kind of potential energy and stories either inspire or they don't. When we talk to someone we know right away if they are a Debbie Downer or an energy vampire or someone who is uplifting and positive. Well, Buddhism just makes me want to take a nap and Paul in the synoptic Gospels makes me feel negative emotions and no desire for wealth or power. Wokeism makes me want to pull my hair out. In contrast, when I read Nietzsche I feel like being more active and productive and feel more virile, and the same emotions Bubble Up When reading much of Joseph Smith's mythology. Again when I separate Nauvoo Mormonism from Kirtland Mormonism and the other Protestant elements in Smith's early productions, my experience of the words is kind of upward momentous energy and the encouragement of positive self-overcoming.

Rather than turning the other cheek and being a punching bag hoping the Messiah will come and take vengeance on your enemies for you, Nephi shocks his brothers in the fictional story which I think is about Joe's conflicts with his brothers which you can read a lot about in the Joseph Smith Papers. And Smith was clearly no pacifist and willing to fight back. While Paul was constantly boasting about being persecuted and bullied and being weak which he felt empowered him because he's imitating and weak and suffering Messiah concept.

So to sum up, just as the Rocky 4 movie inspired me, I was inspired by Mormonism when I was active to be less introverted and more extroverted, to take more action and be more courageous. Why not benefit from that psychical energy from Mormonism without buying into the dogmatism?

If you say why do you need anything to boost you up and encourage you. Why aren't you this self rolling wheel of a Superman on your own? Well that's like asking a woman why she reads a particular woman's magazine or wears makeup. Or why people who lift weights read bodybuilding magazines. We are all social creatures influenced by our environment and what we absorb in books and movies and whatever else.

To be clear, this is highly subjective and to each his own. I'm not preaching or advocating. I'm just entertaining the idea and playing around with it.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does a person need to identify as any specific
> thing or through someone else's lens?
>
> I don't see the need for that, but maybe some do.
> What exactly is the goal here?

I can think of at least one area where identifying yourself as a nonreligious person would be helpful. Surprisingly, that area is hospital care forms. After having been in the hospital many times (for heart and stomach issues) both listed as a religious (Roman Catholic) and a non-religious (atheistic) person, I can assure you that these forms allow me to choose whether or not I wish to have volunteers from my (former) religious faith (people I've never met or know outside of the hospital) come and visit me in my hospital room and pray with me even if I'm not in the mood for the latter. With my signing myself off as an atheist (or non-religious person) when I was in the hospital, I no longer received these visits.

So yes, it is important in some narrow instances to define your religion or lack thereof. That said, I volunteer very little of what I actually believe even to close family members--I consider it to be none of their business.

No. I got stuck inside one of those gigantic spinning cylinders in an amusement park once and that was enough.

Here is another way to explain what I am getting at. Nietzsche did not completely reject all of Christianity, just Pauline Christianity e.g. he spoke favorably of the historical Jesus at times and in Nietzsche 's Early Notebooks by Cambridge, we read:

… note 7 [166] :
Euripides and Socrates signify a new beginning in the development of art: out of tragic knowledge. This is the task of the future, which so far only Shakespeare and our music have completely appropriated. In this sense Greek tragedy is only a preparation: a yearning serenity. - The Gospel according to St John.

… note 7 [13]:
'The Gospel according to St John born out of Greek atmosphere, out of the soil of the Dionysian: its influence on Christianity in contrast to Judaism' …

… [Another note:]
the Gospel according to St John is not only a Greek legacy to Christianity, it is also 'the most beautiful fruit of Christianity'

What is clear is that the Gospel of John had some value artistically as it was influenced by Dionysianism.

Nietzsche did not, could not(?) completely extract his Christian upbringing and cultural inheritance. As I see it, what he did was reconstruct it ways that empowered him and would empower culture. So for example, the scholar, Seung, points out the Superman concept was originally a Lutheran idea. So I think what Nietzsche did was sublimate and transfigure it into something different, more life-affirming.

He says he considered his Zarathustra a ind of "holy book" and the Fifth Gospel. It was yes a parody and dionysian not Pauline but he found value in the power of mythos and using the concept of scripture to convey his ideas.

So I simply think it's possible to do the same with Nauvoo Mormonism akin to how Nietzsche saw the Johanine Gospel.

Part of what led me to entertaining this idea was my reading of the book, "Make Yourselves Gods:
Mormons and the Unfinished Business of American Secularism" by
Peter Coviello. See https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo26266414.html

As far as I know Coviello is a Never'Mo, but unlike most books I have read (both Mormon apologetics and books that are more anti-Mormonism), Coviello does a good job as an outside observer very cleverly pointing out many things in Mormonism that both Mormon apologists and critics overlook, things that can be viewed as very positive from a secular modern perspective in overcoming what Nietzsche called "the despising of the body."

Coviello gave a lecture of his book on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/-ffpf5YyRU0

So anyway his book made me realize a lot of positive aspects of Mormonism "philosophically," that I realized I actually value.

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So anyway his book made me realize a lot of
> positive aspects of Mormonism "philosophically,"
> that I realized I actually value.

You are stuck looking for validation in books. That is a big problem with Mormonism.

I'm an antitheist atheist, secular humanist, and a skeptic.

I believe that religious belief is inherently harmful to society. I think that when you encourage people to believe in untrue things or things they can't prove, no matter how innocuous that particular belief is, it leads to a mindset where there is a willingness to accept a low threshold for the burden of proof for other things. And what we believe influences our opinions and the actions we take.

So, I empathize with what you're saying about the reactioinary impulse consuming you a bit with constantly debunking the truth claims of Mormonism. But in the pursuit of truth based on our mutual, materialistic reality, I personally think that it's a worthy endeavor for my life to challenge these false beliefs wherever I find them. Not just religion but anything, always asking questions, looking for evidence, and accepting that "I don't know" is better than a conclusion based on flawed logic.

As far as personal narratives go, I do like the mythological values of Jungian archetypes and Campbell talking about the value of stories and telling tales to reflect internal realities. I would need more time to work through my associations because all I hear in the stories of Nephi and Alma are the way they were functionally used to instill control mechanisms within me. So, I can't yet separate Nephi and all the others as just a story from the tool that they were(and there's a lot of pain wrapped up in that because I thought these guys were real, that they existed, at one point).

Yea, I totally get with what you're saying blackcoatsdaughter, I have a similar skeptical humanistic bent and have a very strong "baloney detection kit." So like I said I'm not encouraging taking supernaturalist religion literally just playing around with an idea which I could abandon tomorrow. You are right to be skeptical.

You also bring up a good point about how much the stories about Nephi and whatnot are control mechanisms? That is definitely an issue with treating Mormonism as a mythology on an individual basis, the question is would you still be imbibing subliminal messages. This is why I'm not advocating such a thing for others, just playing around with the idea for myself personally. Thus I started the thread by wondering if anyone else has tried it?

I think my approach might be too too much work because it would require a lot of background knowledge, like for example one would have to have read books an understanding how Joe Smith filtered the Protestant Revival Sermons into the BofM text and be able to ignore Evangelical Fundamentalist Turner or Burn sermons found in the Book of Mormon and instead focus on Joe Smith's unconscious Will To Power that was still breaking through the concrete of protestantism here and there in the text, like him saying Adam fell that we might have joy. That was the beginning of his breaking out of the shell of Pauline Calvinism.

I would say all the scriptures he produced prior to 1835 are the most problematic. After 1835, he developed a more humanistic naturalistic materialistic grounding and from there is where his scriptural Productions appear more nietzschean / Epicurean / Stoic. For, it is in the later period that he rejects creation ex nihilo, theistic monotheism, and a god without body parts or passions, and instead presents a material cosmos, man's soul as uncreated and self-existent and humanistic deification: man/woman capable of becoming a supernatural Superman/woman or Exaltedman/woman.

Sugar coated mormonism is still mormonism.

Maybe it is Dave, I don't know. But I'm not into black or white, either/or type thinking. Like if someone who is atheist starts to entertain the idea of a higher power or higher order of some kind, or Jeffersonian Deism, or some higher intelligence, and the doctrinaire Atheist saying "Sugar coated theism is still theism." In other words, I'm not interested in neat little boxes of atheist verses every other thought option. But if the atheist-identity makes you happy go for a bro.

My suggestion: put down the philosophy books and join a bowling league. Anyone using words like Dionysianism needs to get out more.

Nietzsche needed to but didn't.

I quit identifying myself in tribal terms 20yrs ago, since tribalism is what led to 9-11 and I realized Nietzsche was right, God is dead, or never existed as anything beyond a figment of human ego.
So reverting back to a world view that depends upon the delusion that we miraculously survive death, seems counter intuitive to me.

Let me try to put a little more meat on the bones of what I am trying to get at. Let's say I'm at a coffee shop or whatnot, sometimes over here discussion about politics or religion and people will often naturally disclose their religious background; and so some people just say I'm a lapsed Catholic or I was raised Baptist or whatever, but then there is the person who is an ex Jehovah's Witness, and there is this inner turmoil and anger from trauma. But then you talk to this other person and they are like, "Yeah, I was raised Episcopalian but I don't go anymore." I also find that these people have no desire to be an "exEpiscopalian' or an "exLutheran" or whatever. They still identify with their cultural upbringing and have no desire to take that identity and stand against it and attack it and try to eradicate it from their unconscious. I noticed that their physiological energy is different. And I noticed that when I stopped trying to eradicate it and be an ex and just embraced my Mormon Heritage on my own terms, transfiguring it in self-empowering ways, I began to feel better, more empowered, less a victim. Again, that's just me.

I think many on here would admit that they are deep down to some degree cultural Mormons. Just as if they left America and moved to France, they would still retain some cultural vestiges of their American upbringing. What I mean is, there is a certain cultural identity to growing up Catholic or Jewish or Buddhist, etc. I think even the most vitriolic atheist on this board will deep down admit that they are culturally Mormon as much as they are culturally American. Doesn't mean that they believe in it supernaturally. So I'm simply entertaining the idea of whenever I encounter Mormon scripture, characters or phrases, either because someone around me bring them up are they pop into my head, that I simply it reframe it apart from the Utah-Mormon agenda.

Since I believe this is a "recovery board" I'm simply offering an alternative course of recovery that has worked for me so far of late.

When the subject of religion used to come up, I used to be like "Oh yeah, I used to be Mormon and let me tell you all about it, how much I hate it and it screwed up my life." Now I'm just like "Yeah, I was raised Mormon but I'm kind of like a lapsed Catholic version of a Mormon." And the last time I said something like that they were all like, "You're a Jack Mormon!" And I was like yeah that's kind of what I am. Then we have a laugh and that's it. The average person outside of Utah and Idaho really doesn't know that much about Mormonism. So what I did was shift the energy from victim to Victor.

For those who are in the phase of anger and venting when it comes to Mormonism, my thought experiment should not really upset you because it's kind of the ultimate F-U to the utah-based Cult of Nelson. Because the Brighamite sect is saying there's *only one way to Mormon,* while Sunstone for example irritates them by offering alternative views and approaches.

So if your goal is to destroy Mormonism then why not accept multiple lines of attack. There used to be mostly only Evangelicals against Mormonism, but after the internet it has become mostly ExMo-Atheists verses Mormons, well why not add another line of attack by pointing out that Utah-Mormoning is not the only way to Mormon. Just as Republican Mormoning is not the only way to Mormon.

Now if you have completely performed a lobotomy of your former Mormon brain and cultural upbringing and this means nothing to you. Then go for it. If you are the type that can grow up American and move to France in your thirties and forties and learn French and adapt to that culture and retain zero residual American cultural vestiges, then what I'm saying will not resonate with you at all. But if you still feel somewhat culturally Mormon rather than culturally Catholic are culturally Jewish, then what I'm suggesting is an optional way to feel empowered, not victimized.

But again, I am merely philosophizing and playing around with ideas.

Just as Evangelical Christians do not own the copyright to the Bible, Utah-Mormonism does not own the copyright to Mormon scripture. For example, while I am personally politically more moderate or centrist, I enjoy talking to far-right-wing Republican Mormon types by quoting the avalanche of passages in Mormon scripture that argues more for Socialism or at least Social Democracy with the Zion ideal. So if one did happen to be politically Leftist and Socialist, they will find a lot of Mormon scriptures to back that position. In this way, LDS scripture does not need to be literally/supernaturally true but can be practically useful in many ways, if someone was so inclined. In this way they are not being solely reactionary but sublimating it and transfiguring it for their own personal uses. What is wrong with that?

I mean one could argue that life itself is evolution, adaptation, change: reconfiguring former vestiges in new ways. There is a great YouTube video titled everything is a remix.

So part of this is that I am not a joiner, I'm not interested in being Zoner the Atheist, and adopting all of the atheist identity markers, or identifying as an exMormon-Atheist and spending all my time debunking and hating my former religion anymore. Been there and done that. I've always been an independent thinker and a bit rebellious and charted my own course. I also hold to the right to change my mind constantly, and I can completely abandon my thought experiment within a week if it doesn't work for me.

In case I've been misunderstood, I'm not saying I read Mormon scriptures everyday and pray to the Mormon concepts of God (through this humanistic/Joseph Campbell lens I'm entertaining). It's more of a, when it comes up, when I encounter the subject, I re-frame and rather than react against it (with a kind of phobic hateful energy) I reformulate it in a way that is self-empowering.

>> ... and I can completely abandon my thought experiment within a week if it doesn't work for me. <<

I think most folks here have already abandoned your thought experiment.

Well, at least give him credit for identifying RfM as a recovery from mormonism board.

I plan to keep on doing it my way, though.

>> I plan to keep on doing it my way, though. <<

Me too.

Is there a Recovery From Nietzscheism board I can jump on and help others?

That's funny, the top of the Recovery from Nietzcheanism board would read:

“Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you… One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers – but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you… that I may celebrate the great noon with you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Quote anyone you want.....not impressed.

“Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! . . . ”

Could it be that Nietzsche would have opposed Zoner's efforts to reformulate his old Mormon faith?

"Beware lest a statue slay you."

Says the woman who replaced Mormonism with Nietzscheanism. I know you couldn't stay away. So funny and predictable.

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Says the woman who replaced Mormonism with
> Nietzscheanism.

Did I? Or did I simply study an insightful philosopher?


-------------------
> I know you couldn't stay away.

Is it your position that I may not speak to Roy? I am unaware of that rule.


--------------------
> So funny and predictable.

Well, you may have me there. I generally stick with established spelling, grammar, and syntax, and you are certainly a free spirit when it comes to verbal expression. I just didn't realize incoherence was something of which to be proud.

But then again, you do eat guppies.

You're like a codependent ex-girlfriend who keeps calling. After a while you just have to stop answering the phone, because giving them *any attention* is like giving a crack ***** a bit of crack, it just makes them want more. So that's what I'm going to do, like dealing with a crack addict, I'm cutting you off: not getting anymore of my attention. I won't be responding to anything you say to me or about me. You're
not worth it. You're going to throw a tantrum of course, and try and get my attention like a child craving her daddy's attention, so you're gonna stomp your feet and call me names and hurl silly insults; and I'm not going to respond and I'm going to ignore you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2021 03:17AM by Tevai.

Didn't you promise us you were going to leave?

Lately I have been ignoring myself on a daily basis. I've started small, like ten minutes a day during which I act as if I didn't exist.

I'll slowly increase the time, but have taped notes to myself not to do it in the kitchen or bathroom
...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lately I have been ignoring myself on a daily
> basis. I've started small, like ten minutes a day
> during which I act as if I didn't exist.

And it won't be long before you achieve enlightenment, Grasshopper.

What are the qualities of a cultural Mormon? Because I would disagree that I am one. I was born and raised in the church, married in the temple(divorced), went to BYU, and stayed in the church for over 30 years. I've only been a year out and I have spent 3 of the past couple of years inactive.

I know politically I've changed since becoming an atheist, since a god no longer dictates what I value, I've almost completely flipped on all of my previous conservative positions. I have embraced a queer lifestyle and I enjoy reading and writing erotic romance and fantasy.

I don't drink or smoke but it's mostly because my past time pursuits are more cerebral and I am a bit of a health nut. I guess I sorta align with the multiple partners thing, because I believe in polyamory but it's more sexually liberated than the patriarchal polygamy of Mormonism.

So, what are the qualities of a cultural Mormon?

Good question. I think every individual would answer that question differently. I think it's kind of like asking what makes one culturally American. One could say, "I was raised in the United States but I'm not culturally American, I don't go to baseball games, I don't eat hot dogs. But if they met a French person the French dude would be like "Yeah, you're still American dude." See what I'm getting at?

As I see it it's a nonissue to say you are "culturally Mormon" if you were raised in the LDS Church. Most ex-mormons I know would have no problem saying that. Kind of odd that I think some of you spend hours on this message board which exists because of your shared experience being culturally Mormon. I don't think they haven't message boards with people spending hours a day titled exBlank-Supermarket-shoppers. But if you think you're different then that's cool.

And mind you, I'm not disagreeing with what your goal is. I want to get to a place that is healthy and happy, not feeling consumed by my hurt over losing this thing that I wanted. But I do disagree that embracing aspects of Mormonism is the answer, at least for me, personally. I need less Mormonism in my life, not more.

For right now, I keep up with it because I feel protective urges towards family and friends who are still in it. They are still victims and being manipulated by this predatory organization. So, I'm keeping my eye on it and when asked for my opinion, I am honest.

But it's barely been a year for me. After a mere 5 months, I had stopped researching church history and stopped pursuing every lead and lie doggedly. I had stopped searching out Mormons to argue with. I anticipate eventually calming down and other communities and other identities taking precedence in my life. That's the peace and empowerment I want. I don't want to keep Mormonism around on my shelf as a thing I identify with and already saying "I'm an ex-Mormon" has become something said with pride not vindictiveness or bitterness. I'm a survivor. I left a cult and I chose to abandon those chains.

Eventually, I can leave that part out and introduce myself with things I have become to heal and fill the void. I think saying things like "I'm culturally Mormon" would look insincere about the sacrifice I made to leave, almost like regret or doubt. Mormonism is false, it's a scam, and they took advantage of me. I'm not uncertain about leaving it behind.

blackcoatsdaughter,

Just read this second comment after responding to your first comment. I better understand your point now. Being out of the Mormon religion for over 15 years I would say that this thought experiment I am playing around with is not something I would recommend for you.

I get where you're coming from and the current phase you are in in your recovery. As I see it leaving Mormonism and the path one takes is not a One-Stop Shop. Not a one size shoe fits all. I was simply offering one option and asking questions about if anyone else has tried it as I am entertaining it.

Your comments are mature and respectful and I appreciate that. If someone is polite I am polite.

My phase of recovery went through first denial, then possessively consuming every piece of anti Mormonism literature I could find, then reading and debating with a Mormon apologists, then a desire to debate and argue with Mormons, then identifying myself as an ex Mormon, Then post Mormon cuz I liked the way it sounded better. Then I was an Evangelical Christian for about 2 months. Then I tried Buddhism and some other stuff. Then I just stopped thinking about it and I was a deist-hedonist basically.

Then I considered myself agnostic. Then I finally realized I was an atheist. So at an atheist meet up I remember discussing the term atheist and how I don't like that label because it defines me by what I am against rather than what I am for, and suggested humanist as a better term as it's affirmative. So many of the atheists who really identified with the label didn't like that and were like "No, we have to call ourselves atheist!" That's when I realized that it's not just Supernatural Believers that become stuck in groupthink. Kind of like some on this board. I was like okay whatever. Then I just stopped calling myself anyting and just the last three months I have been entertaining this idea.

As you can see my own personal Journey went through phases. There's no right way to do this recovery from Mormonism thing. Do what works for you. Ignore the rabble, Do Your Own Thing.

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway just wondering what y'all thought.

I think your inspiration casts my great great great grandmother as a bitch.

"It is also perplexingly peculiar because of its attendance and hyperfocus on the paradoxes that exist within Mormonism. Coviello’s continual refrain throughout the book is “and yet,” in which he signals to the reader that something in Mormonism might seem one way (homophobic, racist, antiqueer, imperialist, colonial), and yet it is also something else at the same time (queer, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial). For example, in the third chapter, Coviello understands the Book of Mormon as a complex literary text that argues for both an imperial and anti-imperial approach to race. Another example can be found in the second chapter of his work, in which he wrestles with woman’s divinized (or profane) body in Mormon polygamy. The women in polygamy, Coviello understands, were not just in subjection to patriarchy, stooges to misogyny, or empowered in their kinship; they were all of that and more, as seen in Coviello’s close reading of Zina Dianthe Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, the third Mormon Relief Society president (the women’s group in the church), who was married to Henry B. Jacobs, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young, and who used the Mormon religion to flirt with power and godhood."
https://readingreligion.org/books/make-yourselves-gods

She was many things. I don't believe she used "the Mormon religion to flirt with power and godhood."

She was trying to live her life and Joseph changed everything. She was a very competent person who followed the "prophets" as best she could. I fault her for poor judgement and not flirting with power. I guess many think of her as seeking the greatest struggle in her young life. I read her journal. I don't think so.

Elder Berry, I'm only about one-third to one-half way through Coviello's book, but I can say that the short article review you are commenting on, does not give the full flavor of his book.

The paragraph of the reviewer you seemed to take issue with is:

"The women in polygamy, Coviello understands, were not just in subjection to patriarchy, stooges to misogyny, or empowered in their kinship; they were all of that and more, as seen in Coviello’s close reading of Zina Dianthe Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, the third Mormon Relief Society president (the women’s group in the church), who was married to Henry B. Jacobs, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young, and who used the Mormon religion to flirt with power and godhood."

If you read his book you will see that he is, among other things, presenting a more feminist friendly (woman's empowerment) view of early Mormon women so that the women were not merely unthinking victims/blind-followers, but thought about things and contributed to the formation of Mormonism in various degrees, like writing poems and hymns, and yes flirted with power and godhood. How does that make anyone a bitch?

Zoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read his book you will see that he is,
> among other things, presenting a more feminist
> friendly (woman's empowerment) view of early
> Mormon women so that the women were not merely
> unthinking victims/blind-followers, but thought
> about things and contributed to the formation of
> Mormonism in various degrees, like writing poems
> and hymns, and yes flirted with power and godhood.
> How does that make anyone a bitch?

You are gone so perhaps I'm writing this to no one.

Flirting with power?

bitch · a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman. · a lewd woman.

Like Zina used her status as a desired woman to flirt with power?

But of course "writing poems and hymns" was what the empowered through polygamist connections to powerful men was flirting with power?

The problem I see with you Zoner is your opinions come through much much louder than your supporting information. I know what you think more than what you are trying to use Nietzsche's words to say for you. It makes things confusing. Your thesis isn't strong but more a cobbled together conglomeration of other people's words.

Ayn Rand explains it better.

"[y]our only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown."
https://fs.blog/2019/10/ayn-rand-philosophy-matters/

And to be honest, currently my personal philosophy is no better so I'm not a zealous advocate of it for anyone but myself, and I fail to live up to my own expectations.

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.

Ah, sorry to hear you were going. I understand though. The deep philosophy stuff tends to go over the heads of most on any public forum. To be honest, I don't read Nietzsche nor do I know what stoicism is. But I understand what you were trying to do, Zoner, in exploring a different way of healing.

I was at work, so, wasn't able to reply again to what you said to me. But it'd be nice to reach out and talk more.

Edit: I don't know how to contact you or anything, so, if anybody has any ideas, I'd appreciate it. For now, I'll just say goodbye and wish you luck on finding something that fits for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2021 06:56AM by blackcoatsdaughter.

Friedrich had a profound disdain for human weakness:

“The oppressed, downtrodden, outraged exhort one another with the vengeful cunning of impotence: ‘Let us be different from the evil, namely good! And he is good who does not outrage, who harms nobody, who does not attack, who does not requite, who leaves revenge to God, who keeps himself hidden as we do, who avoids evil and desires little from life, like us, the patient, humble, and just’ . . .”

—Friedrich Nietzsche—
—On the Genealogy of Morality—

That's not the point.

What Nietzsche was decrying was Christianity as he experienced it in late 19th century Germany. In his view a perverted morality taught people to be humble, to suffer abuse and not complain, to bleat like sheep rather than standing up and demanding to be treated well--or even to lead society to a healthier morality.

"The meek shall inherit the earth" was, in his judgment, an evil teaching. People should assert their rights and demand accountability. They should insist on a positive morality that meant overturning unjust power structures rather than meekly submitting and hoping that things would be better in the next life.

He wasn't condemning the herd mentality because he disliked sheep. To the contrary, he was tired of seeing them walk placidly to the slaughter.

There seemed to be a lot of dancing around the golden calf in the thread where Nietzsche bashes religion. I've bashed religion myself, but then where do we get our values? From secular humanism? That's junk religion, which is no better than junk science.

The problem for me with Mormonism is the preponderance of lies. The whole thing is a fabrication, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. But at the same time, I felt the truth. That's because the mythological concepts are true in principle. This is not a conundrum for me because I personally find the mentality of TBMs difficult to take. 10 minutes in any meeting is all it takes to remind me why I left.

The cognitive dissonance of a 19th century theology in the 21st century is hard enough, but you also have a system of fiefdoms governed by ultra conservatives with spiritual egos to match.

The Mormon scripts in my head will never really go away. Still, I can pick and choose. There are plain and precious truths, but clearly the wheels have fallen off.

As you point out, other religions aren't much better. The wheels have fallen off of those as well. Maybe the way we order our societies causes that. When our society becomes a cult, so do our religions.

But man cannot live by bread alone. There is such a thing as being born again, entering the kingdom of heaven, and few there be that find it. That last part is why you will never be satisfied with organized religion. On the other hand, we are all in this together. What do you do after you return to God?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you do after you return
> to God?

Kill him.

Why do I get the feeling he will be back under another name?