DiscussMormonism.com

Sanctorian wrote:Not true. I said I do self identify as Mormon and made a public declaration I am a Mormon.

So who wrote this portion of your post?

There has been a push by some that us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it because we no longer self-identify as Mormons and the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it.

maklelan wrote:A community is constituted by its members. They determine what is central, and those things are continually negotiated and renegotiated by those members. What in-group members perceive to be central reifies what is central. A non-member can observe and can offer a description about demonstrable trends and patterns, but they don't have authority over an in-group member's conceptualization of the community.

Authority over the in-group member's conceptualization is besides the point. The point is accurately identifying what is and isn't central to the community (even as they are continually renegotiated over the long haul). Some individuals on the inside can be less accurate and some individuals on the outside can be more accurate when it comes to identifying what is central to the community. Sometimes it's the other way around.

Mr. Mak's argument is pretty flawed. It's akin to, say, an incredibly naïve/stupid political party member claiming more knowledge and insight over an incredibly informed out-grouper simply because the in-grouper attends caucuses, rallies, and volunteers at the local party office answering phones.

Just because someone is an in-grouper doesn't necessarily mean they represent their group's positions accurately, and it doesn't mean everyone is a spokesperson for the in-group's platform. That's patently absurd.

- Doc

maklelan wrote:You don't think the Church was justified in making clarifying statements after Dehlin published multiple transcriptions of secretly recorded meetings and demonstrably misrepresented the motivations of the stake president?

I didn't say that. I only said that those clarifying statements also applied to me and made it clear that I wasn't welcome.

maklelan wrote:

Sanctorian wrote:Not true. I said I do self identify as Mormon and made a public declaration I am a Mormon.

So who wrote this portion of your post?

There has been a push by some that us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it because we no longer self-identify as Mormons and the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it.

I'm no genius, but I believe Sanctorian is repeating someone's claim that most on this board "no longer self-identify as Mormons." Sanctorian is, therefore, self-identifying as Mormon.

maklelan wrote:But there are many who have addressed the non-historicity of the Book of Abraham without any concern from leadership. There are ways to do it without being aggressive and rhetorical and getting in trouble.

I don't dispute the fact that some can do it without any trouble. But the fact is that it is not uncommon for LDS members to have leaders who see any interpretation other than the fundamentalist one as a threat that must be dealt with authoritatively. I have had very reasonable leaders and I have had leaders who have made something as stupid as getting me to shave my beard to be priority #1. But what do you do when both bishop and SP are on the same page on something like that? You just put up with the madness because the church doesn't make it easy to even know how to go over their heads.

maklelan wrote:

Sanctorian wrote:Not true. I said I do self identify as Mormon and made a public declaration I am a Mormon.

So who wrote this portion of your post?

There has been a push by some that us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it because we no longer self-identify as Mormons and the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it.

CameronMO wrote: I'm no genius, but I believe Sanctorian is repeating someone's claim that most on this board "no longer self-identify as Mormons." Sanctorian is, therefore, self-identifying as Mormon.

Yes, you are correct. My sentence was referring to Mak claiming we no longer self-identify as Mormons. I publicly dispute Mak's claims that we no longer self-identify. Furthermore, a person can switch self-identities at any point they wish to switch. Or is Mak suggesting a convert is not really a Mormon because they previously did not self-identify as such? I can claim I'm a Mormon today and claim I'm not tomorrow and then claim the following day I'm Mormon again. That's the beauty of self-identity.

Sanctorian wrote:Yes, you are correct. My sentence was referring to Mak claiming we no longer self-identify as Mormons. I publicly dispute Mak's claims that we no longer self-identify. Furthermore, a person can switch self-identities at any point they wish to switch. Or is Mak suggesting a convert is not really a Mormon because they previously did not self-identify as such? I can claim I'm a Mormon today and claim I'm not tomorrow and then claim the following day I'm Mormon again. That's the beauty of self-identity.

Isn't this a just a teensy bit silly? I don't self-identify as Mormon, and typing the words "I self identify as Mormon" doesn't change that. So why in the world would I say I self-identify with something I am not.

If you tell me you truthfully identify as Mormon, then I'm not going to challenge that. That is what self-identification is about. But I don't see the sense of lying about my self-identification just to score a rhetorical point against some guy on the internet makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Brad Hudson wrote:Isn't this a just a teensy bit silly? I don't self-identify as Mormon, and typing the words "I self identify as Mormon" doesn't change that. So why in the world would I say I self-identify with something I am not.

If you tell me you truthfully identify as Mormon, then I'm not going to challenge that. That is what self-identification is about. But I don't see the sense of lying about my self-identification just to score a rhetorical point against some guy on the internet makes no sense to me whatsoever.

But then again, silly statements wouldn't have to be made if someone would concede a losing argument from time to time...

CameronMO wrote:But then again, silly statements wouldn't have to be made if someone would concede a losing argument from time to time...

Silly statements do get made, but they never "have" to be made. A good yardstick might look something like this: If I think I "have" to make a silly statement in response to someone else's losing argument, maybe their argument isn't as "losing' as I think it is.