Can the study of Mormonism ever be the same within or out of belief?

[_zeezrom]

That title sounds way too serious. All I want to know is this: is it possible for the study of Mormonism to look and feel the same, regardless of your perspective as a Mormon or exmormon or nevermo?

I don't think so. First of all, how can Mormonism feel interesting to a non believer? What motivates a non believer to take the time? Apostasy is a reason I understand. The apostate has a stake in it because of lingering connections through family and friends. But a random never mo? What would motivate them?

But that last question is a tangent. What I mean to ask is can the study become safe and interesting, regardless of perspective?



Guys, I just re-read this post and now I realize I've asked 3 separate questions and I'm not even sure I want to know why. Now I'm questioning the entire post. Maybe i justed want to say hi.

[_Philo Sofee]

Oh........well, in that case, hi!

Yes it can be different and is. But I no longer allow Mormonism to have its own label for me, i.e., "apostate." I have become free because I have found the truth. Apostasy is their label, and I refuse to wear it or agree with it. What they think is utterly irrelevant to me. I don't accept their own pigeon holing of me. I am the captain of my destiny, the master of whatever labels I will wear. It's that simple.

[_honorentheos]

Hi! Hope things are well, my dapper friend.

Your questions bring to mind something I'd picked up in an anthropology series I took in college regarding the difference between emic and etic study of culture. Here's an online explaination of found that seems to align with what I remember:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/cultu ... etic-emic/

An etic view of a culture is the perspective of an outsider looking in. For example, if an American anthropologist went to Africa to study a nomadic tribe, his/her resulting case study would be from an etic standpoint if he/she did not integrate themselves into the culture they were observing. Some anthropologists may take this approach to avoid altering the culture that they are studying by direct interaction. The etic perspective is data gathering by outsiders that yield questions posed by outsiders. One problem that anthropologists may run in to is that people tend to act differently when they are being observed. It is especially hard for an outsider to gain access to certain private rituals, which may be important for understanding a culture.

An emic view of culture is ultimately a perspective focus on the intrinsic cultural distinctions that are meaningful to the members of a given society, often considered to be an ‘insider’s’ perspective. While this perspective stems from the concept of immersion in a specific culture, the emic participant isn’t always a member of that culture or society. Studies done from an emic perspective often include more detailed and culturally rich information than studies done from an etic point of view. Because the observer places themselves within the culture of intended study,they are able to go further in-depth on the details of practices and beliefs of a society that may otherwise have been ignored. However, the emic perspective has its downfalls. Studies done from an emic perspective can create bias on the part of the participant,especially if said individual is a member of the culture they are studying, thereby failing to keep in mind how their practices are perceived by others and possibly causing valuable information to be left out. The emic perspective serves the purpose of providing descriptive in-depth reports about how insiders of a culture understand their rituals.

Since it's near impossible to understand what it means to be Mormon without ever immersing one's self into Mormonism which seems to require more than just going along but really, really believing...I don't think it's possible for a never-mo to "get" Mormonism as a lived experience.

OTOH, I think it's almost impossible for Mormons and even post-Mormons to see Mormonism from a distance the same way never mo's see it.

I don't think that's unique to Mormonism. It's just how culture works.

[_Meadowchik]

I'll spice this us with a heya.

I'd go more precise and say that while you cannot know Mormonism as well without immersing yourself in it, you also cannot know some things without extracting yourself after that immersion.

All that said and done, the measuring of anything always depends upon the instrument. And, to not feel too overwhelmed by my glaring failures, I'll instead relish getting older and the slight improvement of my understanding. It may not be expert, but it's mine and it's much fuller than before.

[_zeezrom]

Guys I really appreciate the comments. I see what you all mean. I have also taken an Anthropology class from a really good professor of the subject (RIP) at BYU. He was a really great person and I miss him...

Here is something that I'd like to add. In addition to immersing yourself into the culture in order to understand and study it, I would think you need to have a reason to like it. If there is something you find interesting about it, then I think you can study it better. I was just talking to my good friend about his mission and I found that the only things he had to say about the country he went to were superficial and somewhat critical. I realized that he probably spent 2 years immersed in a culture that he didn't like. He probably came out of that not really having learned or studied much about them at all.

[_zeezrom]

Oh........well, in that case, hi! :lol:

Yes it can be different and is. But I no longer allow Mormonism to have its own label for me, i.e., "apostate." I have become free because I have found the truth. Apostasy is their label, and I refuse to wear it or agree with it. What they think is utterly irrelevant to me. I don't accept their own pigeon holing of me. I am the captain of my destiny, the master of whatever labels I will wear. It's that simple.

Hi, Philo. I do agree with you about the label. I keep calling myself this in front of other people because I guess it sounds funny. I probably use it as a way to lighten the mood and prevent myself from feeling bad about the broken ties in my family and friends due to my decision to leave. That sounds worse than it is though. Since the pandemic started, I instituted a weekly zoom call with all my siblings and parents. It has been nice to reconnect and I think 10 years has allowed us all to heal from a loss of faith within the family. I would never call myself an apostate in front of people like my parents but I use it to joke around with some friends.

[_zeezrom]

Hi! Hope things are well, my dapper friend.

Since it's near impossible to understand what it means to be Mormon without ever immersing one's self into Mormonism which seems to require more than just going along but really, really believing...I don't think it's possible for a never-mo to "get" Mormonism as a lived experience.

On the other hand, I think it's almost impossible for Mormons and even post-Mormons to see Mormonism from a distance the same way never mo's see it.

I don't think that's unique to Mormonism. It's just how culture works.

Hi Honorentheos. I hope all is well with you these days. I haven't been so dapper lately while working from home hahaha.

I agree with you on this. Although, I do know there are a few never mos that have a really good idea of what Mormonism is like. MSJack for instance knows a LOT about the culture.

Maybe it's not so much a problem for never mos to understand Mormonism as it is a huge problem for a believer to hold onto bias and refuse to look at their own culture in a way that promotes open understanding?

[_zeezrom]

...you also cannot know some things without extracting yourself after that immersion.

Well that's a good point. Do you have an example? I'm trying to think of something I have a better understanding of, compared to my believing friends and family. Perhaps I see the church leaders in a light that is truer to what they actually are.

[Guest]

...you also cannot know some things without extracting yourself after that immersion.

Well that's a good point. Do you have an example? I'm trying to think of something I have a better understanding of, compared to my believing friends and family. Perhaps I see the church leaders in a light that is truer to what they actually are.

Thanks.

In my case, I did not see a problem with LDS gender-complementarianism and benevolent sexism until after I had left. I left after a mini-saga of traumatic ecclesiastical abuse, and only then did I accept the fact that the church structure itself does enable abuse. Thus my mind was freed to identify the church's institutional sexism.

[_Meadowchik]

Dp