Gadianton wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:45 pm
There was some (non-Mormon) professor at Claremont (Armand Mauss?) who did a study about post-Mormon mythology.
If it was Armand Mauss, he was active LDS. He passed away not long ago, I thought. I am not sure whether he was the one to do this particular study or not.
Post-Mormons recite their experiences in predictable ways, and the apologists were all over that study because to them, that meant that post-Mormons are just as irrational as Mormons are -- they have exit narratives that are the equivalent of a testimony.
The process of leaving Mormonism does follow a pretty well-worn path. Not that it is any less significant for those who do the leaving. I remember that Mopologists got a lot of mileage out of that one. Frankly, I got tired of following the high profile exits that John Dehlin publicized. I am sure they were important to the people involved and to many who listened to their Mormon Stories interviews, but I was sated on that stuff.
I think of the exit narrative as an almost ritualized part of the de-conversion process. I went through it, so I have some idea of what it is like and what it is about.
Both are bound to social fabric. And so if I'm a sociologist, and happen to be Mormon, I can't make a fully authentic decision about anything because I will ultimately be explained by the time and place I live, if not by my psychological profile or brain chemistry. And so as a moral agent, I have to put all that away, and nonetheless believe that I can make right or wrong decisions and contrast that with the choices of others. In fact, ironically, I'm wired to do so whether I wish to or not.
True!
And so I think that, as a student of human behavior while at the same time as being human, I must appreciate the limits of my own original thinking and actions, knowing that I can't escape my humanness, but at the same time, since it is axiomatic that all behaviors are equally sensible in terms of causal human explanation by sociology and psychology, it's pointless to suspend all moral judgment just because I know no mater what I do, I'll be explained equally well by history.
Religion is highly subjective. I think of it in terms of what is right for a particular person at the time. Unless I truly thought that a cultural system had no redeeming value, I would probably suspend judgment. Perhaps, for the person in question, the choice they have made is best for them, whether that be leaving a religion, leaving religion altogether, or staying.
Recently Mormon Studies scholar Prof. Steve Taysom said that people should not be judged harshly for leaving LDSism if its function as a meaning-making system no longer works for them. I agree with him, but he is also in a role and speaking in a forum that allows him to do that. I don't know that an LDS leader would be at liberty to do anything of the kind. Maybe that decision looks a lot different when you occupy the leader's seat, and it doesn't take a bad person to balk at following Prof. Taysom's example.
I guess after reading your post I am left with the question: what is the moral decision? Each person will have to decide, yes, but I can also see giving people a break for having decided differently where uncertainty reigns.