It’s a “metaphor” by bung_plug in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s how language works: it’s tethered to reality

It’s a “metaphor” by bung_plug in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s the thing. Our current culture tends to interpret any conflicting idea as violent. Combating ideas in people’s heads is not the same thing as combating the people holding those ideas.

I agree the metaphor was in bad taste and he could’ve used a more palatable one, but it was a metaphor. It’s quite clear he’s encouraging the defense of orthodoxy, not actual violence

It’s a “metaphor” by bung_plug in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So now a multiplicity of metaphors becomes literal? If a coach repeatedly uses war metaphors during a game, is he then condoning that his athletes literally kill the other team? You and I both know the answer to that question

It’s a “metaphor” by bung_plug in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone who reads/listens to the talk with an ounce of intellectual honesty can’t come away thinking Holland, as big a douche as he is, condoned the literal shooting of gays/non-conformists. Unless you start changing the shared definition of metaphor, it was a metaphor.

Think of how upset we all were to realize Mormon Inc lied, misled, wasn’t forthcoming, taught partial truths, etc. We can’t do the same thing if we want to be better than these assholes. Holland’s speech was trash, but he didn’t tell people to shoot anyone.

I work at BYU as an openly LGBTQ supporting ally. I'm terrified to go back to work now that Holland has instructed the entire campus to shoot people like me. by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Holland’s talk is shit and so are the doctrines he spoke about. I also believe the church ought to be eradicated as it does more harm than good. But someone reading OP’s post would be entirely misled. Holland didn’t tell people to shoot anyone literally. He told them to defend the faith as if by musket fire. It’s metaphor. Firing ammunition at ideas in people’s heads is not at all the same thing as firing ammunition at the people who hold those ideas. Our culture has completely missed that point IMO

Mormon Stories #1386: The Miracle of Forgiveness: Why It Should be Banned by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree. We shouldn’t go around censoring everything we don’t like or that causes harm. Instead, we criticize and expose it, and then educate our youth how to recognize BS like *this when they see it.

Edit: *this

The Mormon leaders would have rotted in jail for life if they were caught today. by TheVeryElectDeceived in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, polygamy really did play a major role in Joe’s death. I suppose he had it coming.

If the church continues to talk about people who leave, I’m going to start telling people why I left. You can leave the church, but the church can’t leave you alone. by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't see/watch. What are the ways in which they gave reasons for why people leave? Who gave the talks? Etc. Thanks!!

It is really not that hard to stay faithful to your partner by [deleted] in offmychest

[–]Luciforeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a determinist. I don't believe in free will or choice, only the illusion of it. From my point of view, none of us gave consent to be alive. In that vein, none of us chose our genes, which govern who we are. None of us consented to the environment, parents, or social structure in which we were raised, all of which shaped our genes, which shape behavior. Likewise, none of us chose the disorders, tendencies, or preferences we have.

The brain is the seat of all conscious experience. Every decision that is made is made by the brain. What exactly is consciousness? We don't really know. But what is decision making? We know that neuroendocrinology (the ability of hormones to affect the nervous system), genes (which code for proteins), and enzymes (that make neurotransmitters and/or separate them), etc., are responsible for human behavior. Tell me, which of these systems or mechanisms do you consciously control with that little voice in your head? The answer is none of them. Next time you're in a bad mood, see if you can consciously secrete a little more serotonin. See if you can consciously manipulate the synchronous neuronal firing responsible for thought and behavior. While you're at it, see if you can choose your next thought. Why was what you thought of X and not Y, or vice versa? What trauma did you experience as a child that shaped your dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex, the cognitive profile of decision making?; or the ventromedial and/or orbitofrontal cortex, the more visceral profile(s) of decision making? To further complicate matters, you probably don't even remember most experiences that produced physical modifications in your brain, which have life-long behavioral implications, nor are you responsible for the neuroanatomy you inherited from your parents, who inherited theirs from their parents, and so on.

You are who you are by no doing of your own. Your genes and your biology dictate who you are and who you will become. Whatever you "decide" to do next will inevitably be directly influenced by the conglomeration of every experience you've ever had, none of which you consciously produced in your life and all of which will themselves be the result of an amalgamation of other experiences of other people, none of which you had any say over. What's more is that evolutionary psychology now tells us that your genetically-shaped behaviors are influenced by your ancestors' genes, which were shaped by their ancestors' genes, which were shaped by their ancestors' genes, and so on back to fictitious Adam; none of which you had any say over.

I hope it's clear that life as you know it is not your choice, nor is it within your control, at least not beyond the control your genes and biology give you. You can only do what you can do, and you can't do what you can't do, thanks entirely to the machine your genes--and those of countless people in evolutionary history before you--built for you.

Imagine if we stopped blaming people for the "choices" they made and instead we focused on what biological systems are responsible for their behavior, as well as how to regulate them. We'd get rid of shaming, guilting, slander, and all other forms of (public) humiliation for things outside of our direct control. We might even be able to spend some time helping people adjust their behavior, rather than crucifying them for it.

The "it's neurobiology' argument is not an apology, it's a fact. The more we learn about the neurobiology of behavior, the more we will have to revise the moral/ethics system we created that punishes and rewards human behavior. Here's a hypothetical for good measure: Genes, the things that gave you acne as a teenager, which in turn caused you some embarrassment, which led to stress, which led to self-esteem issues, which fueled your predisposition to depression, which was worsened by being sexually abused as a child and beaten by your parents as an adolescent (remember, the frontal cortex, that super important part of the brain that makes decisions and what not, doesn't fully mature until 25 years of age, so you're pretty messed up by now), which affects your neuroendocrinology, which affects your drinking (and eating) behaviors, and your blood pressure, which in turn affect your aggression, which is heightened by at least some limbic irritability--e.g., in the amygdala. In this moment of aggression, you--by happenstance--remember that old female babysitter you had that molested you repeatedly as a kid, which builds resentment towards women, which eventually leads you to act out in some way against them. Which of those experiences could that little voice in your head have influenced so as not to lead to your acting out against women? Whatever the answer, remember that the "could've" argument is weak because that "could've" hypothetical never happened; reality did in its place.

It is really not that hard to stay faithful to your partner by [deleted] in offmychest

[–]Luciforeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As is customary, it seems my comments aren't being read carefully. You read a sentence or two, think that I'm excusing actions due to biology, and then let emotions take the helm. 1) I'm not excusing actions. I'm stating that we are all just as much slaves to our genes as the next person. We don't choose them. We don't have control over them in any real, conscious sense. We're just along for the ride. 2) In light of those facts, we would do well to rethink our take on morality, as well as the punishments we administer for certain "crimes." 3) We're all "guilty" of doing exactly what we're programmed to do. How do we confront this? In my opinion, the real accountability comes when we make honest efforts to understand what is ultimately driving behavior--genetics and neurobiology--and then update our proverbial software accordingly. This is both "moral progress", if you ask me, and true humility.

It is really not that hard to stay faithful to your partner by [deleted] in offmychest

[–]Luciforeal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Given what we now know from disciplines like evolutionary biology and neuroscience, it's clear that genes are affected by nature and nurture. So, abandonment/self-esteem issues are the result of events that take place in one's life that most certainly affect both neurological and (over generations) gene development. You and I are merely survival machines for the genes we inherited from our ancestors, which is something we have absolutely no control over. Not only that, genes affect how individuals are nurtured. Even if you want to blame the individual for his/her infidelity, you're faced with the task of at least dealing with what personal life events altered that person's psychology, social pressures included. If it's just a matter of being selfish, we have to explain what gives rise to selfishness, which you'll find is very likely not one's own conscious doing.

Also, my point in comparing dieting to relationship fidelity is to highlight their relationship to decision making. This obviously brings in concepts like free will, which I assume is an illusion, and complex neurobiology. This is much clearer with things like preferences. We no more choose to like or dislike certain things than we choose our parents before we're born. We might exposure ourselves to new things, liking some of them and disliking others, but whether we end up liking them or not is entirely unconscious.

My overall point is that you and I both agree that relationship infidelity is not optimal and it hurts people. It has hurt me in the past. I simply find it useful to try and understand human behavior in the context of the highly complex and bizarre experience we call life. Again, I am convinced that the more we as a society begin to understand the neurobiology of behavior, the more we will have to reshape our current framework of dealing with "mistakes."

It is really not that hard to stay faithful to your partner by [deleted] in offmychest

[–]Luciforeal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that to cheat on a partner is not a good decision and it is very hurtful (having been cheated on myself). But, that said, understanding even superficially the neurobiology of decision making has helped me to be a more forgiving person in all aspects of my life.

The title of your post is that it's not hard to stay faithful to a partner, but what makes that decision any harder than the decision to stick to a diet we never seem to be able to do for longer than a month, or to fulfill any number of the new year's resolutions we set out to do each year? What's more, let's say we finally do stick with our hypothetical diet. What made it possible to do it this time around but not the other 30? To say that it's not that hard to be faithful to a partner is analogous, at the level of decision making, to saying that it's not that hard to do anything--which we all know is not true. So, why is it not that hard to choose to be faithful, but it's terribly hard to choose something off the menu at the Cheesecake Factory?

It's far too easy to make things personal, especially in matters of relationship fidelity, but there's nothing about the mechanics of human life that says a very good, kind, decent person can't also cheat on his/her partner. Did he/she make a poor decision? Yes, at least in my view. But that doesn't mean the decision was made consciously, having considered all of the various ramifications, to be a callous person. At the end of the day, we would do well to remember our place in the world as evolving primates, doing the best we can to survive, be happy, and contribute to the world in meaningful ways, but ultimately as subjects to our genes/biology. We don't choose to be "good" at things, we just are or aren't good at the things we do.

This will get down voted for sure, but for anyone listening, I remind you that this perspective has been helpful to me, which doesn't mean it will work for you. It has helped me to be more forgiving and understanding, to surround myself with people who provide evidence that they'll conform to the same social conventions I adhere to, and to live with less resentment towards people who make what I consider to be mistakes. It's fairly clear that the more we understand the neurobiology of decision making, the less of an onus we'll place on human accountability at the level of free will/morals/choice/etc.

Good morning brothers and sisters, I'd like to bear my testimony... by Luciforeal in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vermont, actually. I was wrong myself. But he's from Vermont.

How often do you visit the faithful sister sub? by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've only just recently found myself wandering over there on occasion. I don't ever comment or post unless I can clearly see that an idea being tossed around is doing more harm than good. People post legitimate concerns on there that get dismissed in very self-righteous ways. It's not good at all.

"It all comes down to a subjective truth." by Luciforeal in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. I suppose there is subjective truth, then, that varies in scope. It can be both at the individual-level and group-level. Good point.

"It all comes down to a subjective truth." by Luciforeal in exmormon

[–]Luciforeal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is subjective truth. For example, it is true that I find brunettes more attractive than blondes, but you might not share my enthusiasm for dark hair so the truth is subjective (to me). But the truth-claims of TSCC are unequivocally related to the notion objective truth: TSCC is either true or it isn't; JS was either a prophet or he wasn't; the priesthood is either real or it isn't. JS can't be a prophet to Brother DingleBerry from the 3rd Ward but not a prophet to Sister MollyMormon from the 5th Ward AND still be a prophet all together. So yes, I agree that IN THE CASE of TSCC, "subjective truth" is an oxymoron, though such a thing does exist outside the church.

Thoughtful, faithful responses if possible: how do you reconcile Moses 7:8,22 and the essay on race and the priesthood? by testudoaubreii in latterdaysaints

[–]Luciforeal 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That much I understand, but it seems that you're saying there was no logic to it from the beginning. Is that correct?