Problems facing New Mormonism

[_maklelan]

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".

Disagree. That group is a group that has self-identified as never or no longer Mormon. Not self-identifying as Mormons is just one of two statements that result in the conclusion that "us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it" (which was, by the way, never my position). The other statement is the proposition (also falsely attributed to me) that "the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it." The statement that that group "no longer self-identifies as Mormons," is in no way asserted to be part of the "push by some." It certainly could be, but it also might not be. Given that I have nowhere judged or declared anyone's identification with Mormonism, and I see no place where anyone else has, the condition of no longer self-identifying as Mormon is most likely just acknowledged. This is further supported by the observation that Sanctorian never took the opportunity at any point in our discussion about whether or not he was authorized to speak on behalf of Mormonism to assert identification as a Mormon. He did suggest he did not identify as a Mormon, though:

you are no different than me or a lot of ex-mos. We each have a tipping point on realizing the church can never be the ideal we want it to be due to some inherent limitations. Speaking for myself, I could easily be a cultural Mormon if the church supported my ideals. But I couldn't see the church making the changes fast enough that I could no longer support this version of the church.

2. (indirectly) However, for some at least individuals in this group, "no longer self-identify as Mormons" does not apply/is not true.

That reading is not required by anything in the sentence, and it is directly contradicted by the broader context.

3. (directly, in another comment) I (Sanctorian) do self-identify as Mormon.

In a comment in the thread "Let's all self-identify as Mormons" that advocated for doing it solely in order to undermine my point.

4. (indirectly) I (Sanctorian), though a member of the collective/group am one of the members for whom 2. does not hold.

That's nowhere stated or implied. It's a possible way to read the sentence, but it's not the only possible way, and his comments elsewhere make clear it's not the correct way.

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

No, he just realizes it's rhetorically helpful for him to suddenly assert that it's genuine. There is simply no evidence anywhere that I've seen that at all suggests a different reading.

[_maklelan]

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.

They were not excommunicated for "invalid views." They were excommunicated for marshaling a large following directly against the authority of the Church's leadership.

If they were, there never would have been an essay published disavowing the views of past prophets.

Dead prophets have no bearing at all on this.

No one? Not even the prophet?

He speaks from a position of administrative authority, but Mormonism is not delineated by the LDS Church, nor is his conceptualization of Mormonism any more or less authoritative than anyone else's.

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.

True, they can observe things correctly or incorrectly, but observation is different from authoritative declaration.

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?

Of course not.

Or am I part of the out-group because that's the box I would check on the census form (if there was one)?

Your self-identity is the criterion, not anyone else's.

[_maklelan]

Fact check on THIS very thread

No, I was referencing the possibility that your OP referenced something I said. It is clearly not possible, because you were acknowledging that you and others no longer identify as Mormon. Now you see rhetorical value in asserting otherwise and are too committed to the claim to admit it.

[_malkie]

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".

Disagree. That group is a group that has self-identified as never or no longer Mormon. Not self-identifying as Mormons is just one of two statements that result in the conclusion that "us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it" (which was, by the way, never my position). The other statement is the proposition (also falsely attributed to me) that "the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it." The statement that that group "no longer self-identifies as Mormons," is in no way asserted to be part of the "push by some." It certainly could be, but it also might not be. Given that I have nowhere judged or declared anyone's identification with Mormonism, and I see no place where anyone else has, the condition of no longer self-identifying as Mormon is most likely just acknowledged. This is further supported by the observation that Sanctorian never took the opportunity at any point in our discussion about whether or not he was authorized to speak on behalf of Mormonism to assert identification as a Mormon. He did suggest he did not identify as a Mormon, though:

you are no different than me or a lot of ex-mos. We each have a tipping point on realizing the church can never be the ideal we want it to be due to some inherent limitations. Speaking for myself, I could easily be a cultural Mormon if the church supported my ideals. But I couldn't see the church making the changes fast enough that I could no longer support this version of the church.

2. (indirectly) However, for some at least individuals in this group, "no longer self-identify as Mormons" does not apply/is not true.

That reading is not required by anything in the sentence, and it is directly contradicted by the broader context.

3. (directly, in another comment) I (Sanctorian) do self-identify as Mormon.

In a comment in the thread "Let's all self-identify as Mormons" that advocated for doing it solely in order to undermine my point.

4. (indirectly) I (Sanctorian), though a member of the collective/group am one of the members for whom 2. does not hold.

That's nowhere stated or implied. It's a possible way to read the sentence, but it's not the only possible way, and his comments elsewhere make clear it's not the correct way.

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

No, he just realizes it's rhetorically helpful for him to suddenly assert that it's genuine. There is simply no evidence anywhere that I've seen that at all suggests a different reading.

I guess we will simply agree to disagree on this.

for what it's worth, 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.

I don't think that you are allowing for the complexity of the situations of real live members, many of whom, for some, may never meet the standard of "real". That in spite of their leaders being quite happy to consider them as "real" members, and to grant temple recommends etc.

I suspect that when you insist that some statements are made simply for rhetorical purposes you may not be seeing what the rhetorical intent is - and may be missing the real possibility that some of these statements are made tongue-in-cheek.

You might also want to consider the possibility that you may be doing what you accuse others of - looking for the worst possible interpretation of what people are saying.

[_malkie]

Fact check on THIS very thread

No, I was referencing the possibility that your OP referenced something I said. It is clearly not possible, because you were acknowledging that you and others no longer identify as Mormon. Now you see rhetorical value in asserting otherwise and are too committed to the claim to admit it.

May I suggest another reading?

Sanctorian was acknowledging that some people consider that s/he and others no longer identify as Mormon.

[_maklelan]

May I suggest another reading?

Sanctorian was acknowledging that some people consider that s/he and others no longer identify as Mormon.

Who? Where was such a judgment about Sanctorian's slef-identity made? Why not accept the far more parsimonious reading that he's just acknowledging the fact that he and several others no longer identify as Mormon?

[_malkie]

May I suggest another reading?

Sanctorian was acknowledging that some people consider that s/he and others no longer identify as Mormon.

Who? Where was such a judgment about Sanctorian's slef-identity made? Why not accept the far more parsimonious reading that he's just acknowledging the fact that he and several others no longer identify as Mormon?

See my para above:

for what it's worth, 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.

I'll be really surprised if you have never heard such arguments made.

[Guest]

I guess we will simply agree to disagree on this.

Sorry, I didn't see this post.

for what it's worth, 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.

Sanctorian's post is a direct response to a discussion that has been developing over a few days now. It's unquestionably a reference directly to me, but the statement about no longer self-identifying as Mormon cannot, as far as I can see, be shown to be attributed to anyone else.

I don't think that you are allowing for the complexity of the situations of real live members, many of whom, for some, may never meet the standard of "real". That in spite of their leaders being quite happy to consider them as "real" members, and to grant temple recommends etc.

I'm not saying anything about "real," I'm just talking about sincere self-identity as Mormon, whether or not that has reference to the LDS Church.

I suspect that when you insist that some statements are made simply for rhetorical purposes you may not be seeing what the rhetorical intent is - and may be missing the real possibility that some of these statements are made tongue-in-cheek.

You might also want to consider the possibility that you may be doing what you accuse others of - looking for the worst possible interpretation of what people are saying.

I appreciate you pointing that out and will take it under consideration.

[_malkie]

Thanks, mak - I hereby take back half of the nasty things I've said about you here

(as far as I remember, this is not a big concession since I haven't said anything nasty about you - and I don't plan to start )

[_malkie]

by the way, mak, I think you said at one point recently that you were participating here just now on assignment from COB.

Did you ever expand on that statement?

If not, would you be prepared to do so now?