Let's all self-identify as Mormons

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I've said many times that if I were homeless, I would want to be homeless in the South. Someone will always take you home and give you a good meal.

That's demonstrably false. C'mon, man.

- Doc

[_Quasimodo]

I've said many times that if I were homeless, I would want to be homeless in the South. Someone will always take you home and give you a good meal.

That's demonstrably false. C'mon, man.

- Doc

That was my experience.

I lived in a small town just outside of Nashville. No one went hungry in that town. The people living there took care of everyone that needed it and did it gladly. I could tell you a lot of true stories.

What demonstrations can you make that proves this false?

[_Jersey Girl]

I guess we all had different experiences. I count the people in the South to be genually the kindest, sweetest people I've ever run across. I still have good friends from that time.

I've said many times that if I were homeless, I would want to be homeless in the South. Someone will always take you home and give you a good meal.

I ended up having a nice experience down South once people got used to me and I to them. We lived in the South twice. The anecdote I shared above was from the second time.

Speaking of food, the folks I worked with taught me how make some of their food--fried okra, hush puppies, catfish and chicken. Darn, it was good!

[_Jersey Girl]

I've said many times that if I were homeless, I would want to be homeless in the South. Someone will always take you home and give you a good meal.

That's demonstrably false. C'mon, man.

- Doc

Gawd what is up with you and Everybody Wang Chung? He questions my anecdote about being called a damn Yankee and you're questioning Quasi's report? What gives? I was def called a damn Yankee (I'll tell you one of their jokes in a sec) and they called the Black employees niggers behind their backs.

People have differing experiences.

Here's one of the snide jokes one of them told me when I first worked in the place.

You know what's the difference between a Good Yankee and a Damn Yankee?

What?

A Good Yankee comes to the South to visit and leaves. A Damn Yankee comes to the South and stays here.

(Guess which one I was? Not the one on the visit!)

[_Quasimodo]

I guess we all had different experiences. I count the people in the South to be genually the kindest, sweetest people I've ever run across. I still have good friends from that time.

I've said many times that if I were homeless, I would want to be homeless in the South. Someone will always take you home and give you a good meal.

I ended up having a nice experience down South once people got used to me and I to them. We lived in the South twice. The anecdote I shared above was from the second time.

Speaking of food, the folks I worked with taught me how make some of their food--fried okra, hush puppies, catfish and chicken. Darn, it was good!

Fried okra is to die for. Hard to find around here, so I will occasionally make it myself.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

A Good Yankee comes to the South to visit and leaves. A Damn Yankee comes to the South and stays here.

(Guess which one I was? Not the one on the visit!)

Ha!

You know what was interesting? When I was hiking through the South this year I was surprised at the number of ME and Indian immigrants I encountered. From what I can tell through various conversations they are accepted and for the most part love living in the South.

- Doc

[_sock puppet]

I guess we all had different experiences. I count the people in the South to be genually the kindest, sweetest people I've ever run across. I still have good friends from that time.

I've said many times that if I were homeless, I would want to be homeless in the South. Someone will always take you home and give you a good meal.

I ended up having a nice experience down South once people got used to me and I to them. We lived in the South twice. The anecdote I shared above was from the second time.

Speaking of food, the folks I worked with taught me how make some of their food--fried okra, hush puppies, catfish and chicken. Darn, it was good!

Fried okra is to die for. Hard to find around here, so I will occasionally make it myself.

Damn near anything tastes good fried. Man up, eat your okra boiled (including the clear scum).

Hands down, the best thing I had in the South on my mission was boiled peanuts from street vendors during the harvest. Honorable mention, those small gulf oysters on the half shell. A dozen for a buck fifty. Even a missionary could afford those. Third place, fried alligator tail. Yes, frying makes damn near anything taste good.

[_Jersey Girl]

Fried okra is to die for. Hard to find around here, so I will occasionally make it myself.

I haven't really made it since, I basically deep fry nothing any more. How boring is that?

Oh and they made homemade ice cream. One of the best was Snickers ice cream. I swear on my pug!

[_ludwigm]

okra

okra is to die for

I am here to learn forever.

[_Gadianton]

Assuming Brad is clear on my last post, my point is that conflating Mormon theology de facto and Mormon theology de jure is a more fundamental block to criticism than insisting only self-identified Mormons can say what Mormonism is. I will admit at first when Mak posted about self-identification, I quickly saw the opportunism of apologists past, and missed what was going to make this discussion a tangled mess. Relax the self-identification assumption. If apostates "have a seat at the table" in determining Mormon theology de facto, then we accept the pat on the head and say, "great, it's cool you recognize our voice counts too!" but the ends to which it counts are not the ends that critics and believers care about. Believers and critics debate theology, not the sociology of theology. Any descriptive -ology of theology may bear on the theological discussion but doesn't determine theology and theology can be fully independent of it. If it is assumed or the issue confused such that all there appears to be are the de facto beliefs of Mormons, and sociology and cognitive science can help us decide what those are, then the bluster of critics is either steamrolled by the masses, fails to trump believing narratives (by definition), or is relegated to a categorical error.

I might come up with reasons why I think the self-identity assumption is problematic, but I'm not a sociologist, and I assume there are sociologists out there far smarter than I am who have spent careers over the best way to catalog a movement. It may very well be that self-identification works better than any other method so far. I have nowhere near the knowledge to argue with Mak over that point. But it seems pretty obvious that when highlighting advantages of self-identifiers such as how memory works for those who self-identify, it's in the service of a descriptive account of Mormonism of interest to sociologists, not critics or believers. Memory has nothing to do with theology. Let us not forget that the best historians of the nineteenth century and the best scholars, preachers, and the most devout Christians of that time might tell us best what the gospel of Jesus Christ meant to 19th century America, but none of that tells us about the true and everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ. A lone fourteen-year-old boy held a monopoly on that.