Problems facing New Mormonism

[_maklelan]

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.

How dare you!?! Yeah, I get that. I think it's also true that I am probably the object of more scrutiny and rhetoric than anyone else on this board when I am participating here. I mean, count how many threads either name me in the title or in the opening post, or refer directly to a position for which I alone advocate that is being criticized. Hopefully I can be forgiven some of my defensiveness in light of that.

[_maklelan]

Or perhaps some apologists remain deliberately ambiguous to give themselves perpetual deniability?

Yeah, maybe that's it.

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.

[_SteelHead]

Mak,
You are the only Mormon defender of any standing who still sometimes participates here. Hence the dog pile. If there were more defenders, the emphasis would be less narrow, but there is just you.....

[_maklelan]

Mak,
You are the only Mormon defender of any standing who still sometimes participates here. Hence the dog pile. If there were more defenders, the emphasis would be less narrow, but there is just you.....

Yeah, I'm aware of the dynamic, I'm just pointing out that my defensiveness might be a little more understandable in light of it.

[_malkie]

Mak,
You are the only Mormon defender of any standing who still sometimes participates here. Hence the dog pile. If there were more defenders, the emphasis would be less narrow, but there is just you.....

Yeah, I'm aware of the dynamic, I'm just pointing out that my defensiveness might be a little more understandable in light of it.

Don't you know that you're expected to be perfect?

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

How dare you!?! Yeah, I get that. I think it's also true that I am probably the object of more scrutiny and rhetoric than anyone else on this board when I am participating here. I mean, count how many threads either name me in the title or in the opening post, or refer directly to a position for which I alone advocate that is being criticized. Hopefully I can be forgiven some of my defensiveness in light of that.

I'm sorry if that sounded judgmental. I'm trying to avoid assigning blame. It's just my description of what I see happening. I don't see anything to forgive on anyone's part. Human communication is dicey thing even when everyone trusts each other's motives. When there is as much distrust as there is here, it becomes close to impossible.

And I think Steelhead is dead on about the cause of the dogpile.

[_Res Ipsa]

For clarification, are you taking the position that one cannot understand Mormonism if one does not self-identify as Mormon, or is your position about authority to speak for Mormonism in contrast with understanding Mormonism? Or is it something else altogether?

[_fetchface]

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 didn't see that last part in Sanctorian's post. I empathize with both you and Sanctorian. As a believing Mormon, I hated when other people dictated my beliefs to me. As a disaffected Mormon, I hate being told that my opinion doesn't matter (and I think that is what is bothering Sanctorian if I am reading correctly).

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. .

That's one game I wouldn't play. Folks would probably get tired of starting patronizing threads for me that I don't show up to. I think that if I were to find an unmoderated forum that was dominated by believing Mormons and I were to spend significant time there, this sort of thing might conceivably happen. What would I do about it? I don't know. It wouldn't make me feel good, that's for sure.

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.

Agreed.

[_maklelan]

I'm sorry if that sounded judgmental.

No, I don't think it sounded judgmental at all.

I'm trying to avoid assigning blame. It's just my description of what I see happening. I don't see anything to forgive on anyone's part. Human communication is dicey thing even when everyone trusts each other's motives. When there is as much distrust as there is here, it becomes close to impossible.

And I think Steelhead is dead on about the cause of the dogpile.

Yeah, I agree.

[_maklelan]

For clarification, are you taking the position that one cannot understand Mormonism if one does not self-identify as Mormon, or is your position about authority to speak for Mormonism in contrast with understanding Mormonism? Or is it something else altogether?

I'm speaking about the authority to speak for Mormonism. It started because I said the general Mormon worldview about using the seer stone to translate would view it as something God has to authorize/command. I was told by someone who was not LDS that I was wrong and that a series of obscure historical texts that no one ever reads proves that the Mormon worldview about seer stones in general is different. Beyond the misunderstandings, the person was presuming to speak for Mormonism and generalizations about the Mormon worldview.