Problems facing New Mormonism

[_Sanctorian]

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.

So do you agree with Mak that the only way to understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it?

[_fetchface]

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.

I don't think so, in this case.

The whole notion of what I self-identify as is not something with an easy answer. I have resigned from the church yet I attend SM every week. I was born into it and my religious beliefs were tied to the church at the same time I was forming beliefs about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, et. It was very ingrained in my mind from an early age and had a profound effect on shaping who I am and how I think. At this point in my life, in some ways I self-identify as Mormon and in some ways I do not. It is not binary.

If someone is suggesting that I have to be all in or I simply can't understand how it works, I would feel comfortable calling this a weak attempt to delegitimize my concerns. But I would probably just call this out rather than buying into the argument and trying to become a true Scotsman.

[_Res Ipsa]

So do you agree with Mak that the only way to understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it?

I don't think that's what he said. If I'm wrong, would you please refer to where he said it?

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

I don't think so, in this case.

The whole notion of what I self-identify as is not something with an easy answer. I have resigned from the church yet I attend SM every week. I was born into it and my religious beliefs were tied to the church at the same time I was forming beliefs about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, et. It was very ingrained in my mind from an early age and had a profound effect on shaping who I am and how I think. At this point in my life, in some ways I self-identify as Mormon and in some ways I do not. It is not binary.

If someone is suggesting that I have to be all in or I simply can't understand how it works, I would feel comfortable calling this a weak attempt to delegitimize my concerns. But I would probably just call this out rather than buying into the argument and trying to become a true Scotsman.

I don't understand Mak as claiming it has to be binary. Have you seen him make that claim?

[_fetchface]

I don't understand Mak as claiming it has to be binary. Have you seen him make that claim?

No, but I saw what appeared to be defensive rhetoric on the part of Mak arguing against Sanctorian somewhere else. Honestly, it is really tiring to follow these sorts of arguments. I'm going off my possibly unreliable memory. I'm not going to cite something because I would have to go read all that crap again and I'm not going to do that.

I am also not sure he made that claim. That's why I wrote in the subjunctive.

What's clear to me at this point is that Sanctorian *thinks* Mak made this argument or is at least attempting to refute this argument so one would think it would be trivial to put this to bed by saying, "That's not what I think at all." Maybe this has already been done.

So I'm back to wondering who is claiming what about what and why there is so much argument.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't understand Mak as claiming it has to be binary. Have you seen him make that claim?

No, but I saw what appeared to be defensive rhetoric on the part of Mak arguing against Sanctorian somewhere else. Honestly, it is really tiring to follow these sorts of arguments. I'm going off my possibly unreliable memory. I'm not going to cite something because I would have to go read all that crap again and I'm not going to do that.

I am also not sure he made that claim. That's why I wrote in the subjunctive.

What's clear to me at this point is that Sanctorian *thinks* Mak made this argument or is at least attempting to refute this argument so one would think it would be trivial to put this to bed by saying, "That's not what I think at all." Maybe this has already been done.

So I'm back to wondering who is claiming what about what and why there is so much argument.

What I think I'm seeing is lots of reaction to what people think Mak is saying without first trying to understand what he is saying. I think that Mak's tendency toward defensiveness makes it hard and sometimes unpleasant to do that.

[_fetchface]

What I think I'm seeing is lots of reaction to what people think Mak is saying without first trying to understand what he is saying. I think that Mak's tendency toward defensiveness makes it hard and sometimes unpleasant to do that.

Yes, it is frequently *very* difficult for me to understand what he is trying to say because when he gets defensive he appears to take a position against the person he is defending himself against. I think this leads to a lot of misunderstanding and it frequently leaves me wondering why he got defensive in the first place.

What I am saying is that I think both he and the people who are misunderstanding him both deserve blame.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Or perhaps some apologists remain deliberately ambiguous to give themselves perpetual deniability? It's not our fault if we can't understand just what the “F” they're trying to say or not say. If someone is trying to make a point the onus is on that person to be understood.

- Doc

[_malkie]

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.

I don't think so, in this case.

The whole notion of what I self-identify as is not something with an easy answer. I have resigned from the church yet I attend SM every week. I was born into it and my religious beliefs were tied to the church at the same time I was forming beliefs about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, et. It was very ingrained in my mind from an early age and had a profound effect on shaping who I am and how I think. At this point in my life, in some ways I self-identify as Mormon and in some ways I do not. It is not binary.

If someone is suggesting that I have to be all in or I simply can't understand how it works, I would feel comfortable calling this a weak attempt to delegitimize my concerns. But I would probably just call this out rather than buying into the argument and trying to become a true Scotsman.

As a true Scotsman (self-identified) I identify with your position here with regard to the church.

When discussing religion in a relatively serious way, as I have done from time to time, I have to decide, based on the way the discussion id going, whether it makes sense for me to claim to be Mormon.

I can honestly self-identify as Mormon, based on my current membership status (member), and on my family circumstances (the family members that I interact with most are active members, and we discuss Mormonism from time to time), and because Mormonism impinges on my life in multiple ways that it would not do if I were not in fact a member. I can speak with a degree of authority about Mormonism because of my knowledge of the religion, and, in fact, am aware of a number of things related to Mormonism that my active family members know nothing about.

I can also honestly self-identify as non-Mormon based on my disbelief in church teachings, in spite of the fact that I know (or know of) active temple-going members who are to all intents and purposes true faithful members, whose beliefs are not very different from mine - except, perhaps, in the details of what they and I believe and disbelieve.

Since every Mormon I know appears to be a cafeteria Mormon, I'm really not sure how anyone other than my Branch President and my Stake President can honestly challenge my self-identification in either direction. And to this point, both have been aware of my beliefs for quite some time, and neither has made any move to so much as suggest that I cannot legitimately call myself Mormon.

[_maklelan]

No, but I saw what appeared to be defensive rhetoric on the part of Mak arguing against Sanctorian somewhere else.

Yes, he started a thread insisting that he and the other people here who no longer identify as Mormon should start doing so because that would then give them authority to dictate what Mormons think and believe. I pointed out that self-identity that is openly dishonest and rhetorical isn't really what I was talking about. He tried to insist it was all suddenly perfectly sincere.

Honestly, it is really tiring to follow these sorts of arguments. I'm going off my possibly unreliable memory. I'm not going to cite something because I would have to go read all that crap again and I'm not going to do that.

Now imagine having to deal with that when half the threads started every day are aimed directly at you, often explicitly in the title of the thread.

I am also not sure he made that claim. That's why I wrote in the subjunctive.

What's clear to me at this point is that Sanctorian *thinks* Mak made this argument or is at least attempting to refute this argument so one would think it would be trivial to put this to bed by saying, "That's not what I think at all." Maybe this has already been done.

So I'm back to wondering who is claiming what about what and why there is so much argument.

I don't think it is binary in any sense, to be clear. It's not a clear and easy dichotomy, and I recognize that it can be compartmentalized, relative, and can change from day to day. That doesn't make it ok to assert the identity for purely rhetorical reasons.