DiscussMormonism.com

maklelan wrote:I'm speaking about the authority to speak for Mormonism.

That's a subject that could get real deep real fast.

Personally, I'm not sure that anyone has the authority to speak for other Mormons, even the prophet. They can only speak for themselves and their Mormon experience. We can speak of trends of experience but I'm not sure it is all that useful to make statements like "Mormonism is X" (even though it is done here all the time). Because I know people (most notably my wife) who have a *very* different experience than I do in the church. And I know there is nothing disingenuous about it.

fetchface wrote:That's a subject that could get real deep real fast.

Personally, I'm not sure that anyone has the authority to speak for other Mormons, even the prophet. They can only speak for themselves and their Mormon experience.

And this is pretty much the point I've been trying to make all along. Every Mormon has a different view, and they're all equally valid. No one speaks for all. Mormonism is the sum of those who identify as Mormons, not a monolith. Most of my concern has been aimed at the presumption that out-groups can dictate what Mormonism is through reading texts.

fetchface wrote:We can speak of trends of experience but I'm not sure it is all that useful to make statements like "Mormonism is X" (even though it is done here all the time). Because I know people (most notably my wife) who have a *very* different experience than I do in the church. And I know there is nothing disingenuous about it.

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree.

fetchface wrote:That's a subject that could get real deep real fast.

Personally, I'm not sure that anyone has the authority to speak for other Mormons, even the prophet. They can only speak for themselves and their Mormon experience. We can speak of trends of experience but I'm not sure it is all that useful to make statements like "Mormonism is X" (even though it is done here all the time). Because I know people (most notably my wife) who have a *very* different experience than I do in the church. And I know there is nothing disingenuous about it.

Well, full circle back to if labeling people (grouping/stereotyping) has any value. For me, groupings/labels like the following tend to be like a picture telling a thousands words ... most of which will hold true:

Chapel Mormon
Internet Mormon
Liberal Mormon
New Order Mormon
New Mormonism Mormon

So, does the majority set then have the authority? Maybe this New Mormonism has really left me in the dark ... I'd suggest that the Chapel Mormon is still the large majority ... at least up and down the Mormon Corridor.

I'd also assume that this New Mormonism is a tiny fraction.

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.

Where is that claim? Here's the statement:

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.

This is unquestionably a reference to me, but I have never once made any statement whatsoever about how people here identify. I have only ever said that one's authority to speak for Mormonism is contingent upon their self-identity, whatever it may be. Sanctorian is the one affirming in the above statement that my comments must refer to him and others "because [they] no longer self-identify as Mormons." Unless you can point to someone insisting he and others "no longer self-identify as Mormons," he is not repeating anyone's claim.

RockSlider wrote:So, does the majority set then have the authority? Maybe this New Mormonism has really left me in the dark ... I'd suggest that the Chapel Mormon is still the large majority ... at least up and down the Mormon Corridor.

I'd also assume that this New Mormonism is a tiny fraction.

I'm in Southern California so I can't speak to the Mormon Corridor but I get to hear anecdotes from my wife here. It seems that in the Relief Society here there are roughly two factions. One is predominantly concerned with showing kindness and empathy over concerns with orthodoxy and is made up of people in their 30s. My wife is one of them. The other faction is very concerned with orthodoxy and skew more to the baby-boomer generation. It sounds like things get kind of heated at times in their discussions. My wife recently came home crying after one of the lessons. So when people talk of a 'new' Mormonism, I kind of see something like that birthing right here in front of me in my wife's stories. And it is quite a bit different from the experience I had growing up. Orthodoxy was of supreme importance in that culture.

maklelan wrote:
This is unquestionably a reference to me, but I have never once made any statement whatsoever about how people here identify.

Fact check on THIS very thread

maklelan wrote:You don't really think self-identity can be openly dishonest, do you?

sanctorian wrote:How is that dishonest? I was raised Mormon, married to a Mormon, have kids that are Mormon, I'm extremely Mormon.

maklelan wrote:you don't actually and sincerely identify as Mormon

I don't even have to link to the other thread where you keep on telling me how I identify. Who's being dishonest now Mr. Mak?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: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

I agree with you wholeheartedly. There seems to be a frustrating amount of refusal to be pinned down to an actual opinion that is driving me crazy lately in this board.

maklelan wrote:

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.

Where is that claim? Here's the statement:

Sanctorian, misunderstood? wrote: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.

This is unquestionably a reference to me, but I have never once made any statement whatsoever about how people here identify. I have only ever said that one's authority to speak for Mormonism is contingent upon their self-identity, whatever it may be. Sanctorian is the one affirming in the above statement that my comments must refer to him and others "because [they] no longer self-identify as Mormons." Unless you can point to someone insisting he and others "no longer self-identify as Mormons," he is not repeating anyone's claim.

mak, let me try to parse what I think Sanctorian is saying above - and which CameronMO has clarified, although apparently not to your satisfaction:

1. (directly, here) There is a collective/group (perhaps meaning MDB?) that has been labeled as no longer self-identifying as Mormons - "There has been a push by some".
2. (indirectly) However, for some at least individuals in this group, "no longer self-identify as Mormons" does not apply/is not true.
3. (directly, in another comment) I (Sanctorian) do self-identify as Mormon.
4. (indirectly) I (Sanctorian), though a member of the collective/group am one of the members for whom 2. does not hold.

Sanctorian is not being dishonest, nor is s/he using self-identity as a Mormon for rhetorical effect, but as a valid self-identity.

ETA: Whether the above quote is a reference to you is, I believe, irrelevant, because it is a common claim by some who apparently consider themselves to be models of "real" Mormons that anyone who has left (and even some who have not left) no longer understand what Mormonism is about, and therefore are not entitled to have an opinion on the subject.

maklelan wrote:Every Mormon has a different view, and they're all equally valid.

No, they aren't all equally valid. If they were, John Dehlin and Kate Kelly would not have been excommunicated for their invalid views on Mormonism. If they were, there never would have been an essay published disavowing the views of past prophets.

maklelan wrote:No one speaks for all.

No one? Not even the prophet?

maklelan wrote:Most of my concern has been aimed at the presumption that out-groups can dictate what Mormonism is through reading texts.

Quibbling about out-groups and in-groups is a distraction. People on the inside or the outside can get things right (or wrong) through experience (many now out were in for a very long time) and/or study.

For the record, I don't identify as Mormon but when I met with the local Stake President at his request to discuss my status and I told him exactly where I stood, he insisted that I was still Mormon. So am I part of the in-group because the Stake Pres insisted I was? Or am I part of the out-group because that's the box I would check on the census form (if there was one)?

Tim the Enchanter wrote:

maklelan wrote:Every Mormon has a different view, and they're all equally valid.

No, they aren't all equally valid. If they were, John Dehlin and Kate Kelly would not have been excommunicated for their invalid views on Mormonism. If they were, there never would have been an essay published disavowing the views of past prophets.

You do realize that the LDS Church is not Mormonism?!? I'll let maklelan respond to the rest of this nonsense.