I don't recognize this new version of Mormonism.

[_Lemmie]

Who's claiming insider status? I know for me, and what appears to be others on this board, is that we claim understanding because of our historical relationship with Mormonism. I fully acknowledge that I'm on the outside now, and that I can't know what it's like to be a TBM in 2015 for obvious reasons. I don't believe that invalidates my observations, though. If anything, like others here, we bring a solid perspective to the table.

- Doc

Disclaimer - I haven't read past this post so I may miss something in my response that would be reflected elsewhere or would be better addressed here.

I agree - your observations, opinions, perspective, and emotional connection to Mormonism are valid. Just as valid as anyone elses. The understanding of the broader subject of what it means to be Mormon or what Mormonism is would be incomplete to some extent without it. But to understanding the whole, it is important to understand your perspective for what it is.

Where I think insider status is claimed, if not explicitly, is in the moments when people argue how a Mormon ought to be interpreting something or feel about some saying or fact because that is how they interpret it and they've served as an X, Y, Z with Q generations of Mormons in their family, and XX years inside. I've done it myself over the years since I first started questioning the Church's truth claims. And as I've thought about it in intervening years it's occurred to me that part of this was my emotional investment in Mormonism put me somewhere on the spectrum between emic and etic relations with the Church. Part of my current indifference to allowing Mormons to self-define who they are while having no problem arguing historical issues and their sources comes from moving away from that emotional association. I feel more outside of Mormonism now than I ever have. And with that, I feel I see where Mak is coming from and broadly agree with it. Of course, I'm also of a mind to view reality as extremely complex and irreducible, which means most attempts by humans to understand the universe requires modeling it artificially to some extent and being fine with the utility of this approach along with it's mere approximation of what is.

I guess what bothers me most in these threads isn't that people are debating Mak's position so much as they aren't debating his actual position but what seems more likely to be their own demons related to their Mormon identity, whatever state that may take presently. But what do I know.

Interesting, what I am seeing is people who are extremely frustrated at being told their relationship with the Mormon church is not valid, therefore their observations are not acceptable.

I think the best approach is to ignore mak when he tells people their experiences are invalid. I am interested in hearing people's experiences, and there is no reason to invalidate someone else as aggressively and confrontationally as mak attempts to do it.

[Guest]

Interesting, what I am seeing is people who are extremely frustrated at being told their relationship with the Mormon church is not valid, therefore their observations are not acceptable.

I think the best approach is to ignore mak when he tells people their experiences are invalid. I am interested in hearing people's experiences, and there is no reason to invalidate someone else as aggressively and confrontationally as mak attempts to do it.

I agree to a point. The idea anyone's perspective is invalid would be wrong minded and problematic in it's own right. There's also a certain value in working to self-assess where one's own perspective lies in relation to the Church and probably being more realistic in acknowledging the difficulty of being able to assess someone else's in any format, let alone that of a message board.

But I also think the board would be a slightly better place if we could come to terms with this as it applies to our own perspectives on Mormonism (or any other subject, really) and behave with according respect for the Other's perspective when it doesn't accord exactly with our own. And yes, I'm sure Mak could probably do better at this as could we all.

[_maklelan]

Interesting, what I am seeing is people who are extremely frustrated at being told their relationship with the Mormon church is not valid, therefore their observations are not acceptable.

I've not said that. It's up to each person what their relationship with Mormonism is. I'm only pointing out that once that tie is severed by the individual, so is any authority over what Mormonism is.

I think the best approach is to ignore mak when he tells people their experiences are invalid.

Nowhere have I said anyone's experiences are invalid.

I am interested in hearing people's experiences, and there is no reason to invalidate someone else as aggressively and confrontationally as mak attempts to do it.

How many times in the last week have I used profanity to insult another poster on this board? 0. Have you counted how many times people have used profanity to insult me?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I guess what bothers me most in these threads isn't that people are debating Mak's position so much as they aren't debating his actual position...

Thanks for taking the time to write out a thorough and thoroughly understandable post, honor.

If you understand Mr. Mak's position then you're a better man than I. I literally have no damned clue what his position is because he's ambiguous, won't get pinned down on an issue, and is hyper defensive (although I think his toned changed today which is helpful when trying to decipher whatever it is he's attempting to communicate).

I get that he's pushing the in-group/out-group thing, but it's morphed into self-identity, or misinterpreting communication, or rhetoric, or binary/not binary thinking, or juvenile pandering, or a grassroots attempt to change the Church, or denying our positions/observations have merit, or... Man, I don't know.

I think it's great he's here. I think dialogue is important. I think it moves change forward. So, if you understand his position then maybe you could post on the translator thread; I promise I'll read it. :)

- Doc

[_maklelan]

I guess what bothers me most in these threads isn't that people are debating Mak's position so much as they aren't debating his actual position but what seems more likely to be their own demons related to their Mormon identity, whatever state that may take presently. But what do I know.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective, and I think this is right on target. I've expressed similar concerns with the strawman that have been hurled at me in the last few days.

[_Lemmie]

Interesting, what I am seeing is people who are extremely frustrated at being told their relationship with the Mormon church is not valid, therefore their observations are not acceptable.

I've not said that. It's up to each person what their relationship with Mormonism is. I'm only pointing out that once that tie is severed by the individual, so is any authority over what Mormonism is.

I think the best approach is to ignore mak when he tells people their experiences are invalid.

Nowhere have I said anyone's experiences are invalid.

I am interested in hearing people's experiences, and there is no reason to invalidate someone else as aggressively and confrontationally as mak attempts to do it.

How many times in the last week have I used profanity to insult another poster on this board? 0. Have you counted how many times people have used profanity to insult me?

How does 'aggressively and confrontationally' translate into profanity? is this more of your exaggerated self-victimization? In your delusional brain do you now have a story to tell about how people insulted you with profanity? Every story you've ever told here is called into doubt with your penchant for exaggeration, self-victimization, and selective memory. Peddle it elsewhere.

And speaking of profanity, the most disgusting bit of 'language' I've ever read on this board was your statement to Dr. Scratch that you were sure he would receive the requisite 'reach-arounds' from his peons as they disagreed with you.

Disgusting.

[_honorentheos]

I guess what bothers me most in these threads isn't that people are debating Mak's position so much as they aren't debating his actual position...

Thanks for taking the time to write out a thorough and thoroughly understandable post, honor.

If you understand Mr. Mak's position then you're a better man than I. I literally have no f*****g clue what his position is because he's ambiguous, won't get pinned down on an issue, and is hyper defensive (although I think his toned changed today which is helpful when trying to decipher whatever it is he's attempting to communicate).

I get that he's pushing the in-group/out-group thing, but it's morphed into self-identity, or misinterpreting communication, or rhetoric, or binary/not binary thinking, or juvenile pandering, or a grassroots attempt to change the Church, or denying our positions/observations have merit, or... Man, I don't know.

I think it's great he's here. I think dialogue is important. I think it moves change forward. So, if you understand his position then maybe you could post on the translator thread; I promise I'll read it. :)

- Doc

I appreciate your replies, which I've taken to show honest interest and restraint. I'd hope I'd think twice before climbing atop a two-legged stool like that of claiming to be a translator. I have my opinion on what his position is, and how it's being misunderstood. But it is just that. I personally have probably gained more just from following up on some of the suggestions in inthebarrel's posts than I could ever hope to offer. Being not of the ivory tower, I'm also not ashamed to admit I had to google Mikhail Bakhtin and am still chasing resources. That by itself has made this a net gain for me.

[_Sanctorian]

I've not said that. It's up to each person what their relationship with Mormonism is. I'm only pointing out that once that tie is severed by the individual, so is any authority over what Mormonism is.

Clearly not one single person on this board has completely severed ties with Mormomisn or they wouldn't post on a Mormon discussions board. There are some (such as myself) that have resigned membership in regards to the corporation of the Salt Lake Church, but I certainly have not severed ties with Mormonism or I wouldn't be married to a Mormon, allow my kids to be baptized Mormon or participate in Mormon anything. And yet here I am. Once again you make the definition and then try to move the goal posts when someone doesn't fit your rhetoric. You want to talk about dishonesty. Go back and read your posts if you want to see dishonesty and rhetoric.

[_moksha]

This "so-called" New Mormonism would require competing religionists and critics to retool their attack kits. For instance, should they include the traditional camo field jacket and would they best be served by utilizing a machete or a flame thrower.

[_Gadianton]

In one respect what Mak is saying makes sense but in another way of looking at it he's totally wrong. Depends on what he means. Consider a school of fish. Let's not worry about whether a fish self-identifies or not as part of the school. The sociologist observers the school moving north, then dart to the west, then split to avoid an oncoming eel, rejoin, and then head south. Somehow, each individual fish contributes to what is ultimately the dynamics of the emerging social organism. Let's say, after the brush-up with the eel, one fish leaves the group and goes off to explore a piece of algae. The rest of the school then goes South and ties are severed with the lone fishy, who goes North alone.

Let each fish represent a Mormon, the school represent Mormonism, the movements of each fish represent each member's beliefs, and the movement of the School represent the beliefs of "Mormonism".

Here are some things we can say about the situation:

1) The sociologist can say which direction the school is moving, but is forbidden to say whether its moving in the right direction. The sociologist may only posit constraints and possible motivations and speculate on efficacy in navigating the constraints. If there is a big orange fish in the sky that decreed the school to move North after encountering the eel, and if the decrees of this fish constitute right and wrong, then clearly the school is in apostasy, but the sociologist has no insight into this.

2) When the school moves South, the fish that broke off clearly did not contribute to the decision of the social organism to move South.

3) Suppose the sociologist deciphers fish language, and learns that each one of these fish have a slightly different belief set. Many believe in a giant fish that looks just like they do, gray, and he's angry, and he decrees the direction to go. Some fish see a similar giant fish, but with a friendly beard, and allows the fish to choose their own way. A few of the fish believe a vortex is moving them around and laugh at the big fish idea. It doesn't matter that the break-off fish is the only fish that believes in a big orange fish and therefore constitutes the true remnant of the rightfully decreed school, the sociologist is studying the dynamics of the social organism, and the break-off fish clearly quit contributing to the movements of the social organism.

Ignoring how Mormons are identified, it's obvious that only Mormons determine the beliefs of "Mormonism". Each fish gets a vote and a social dynamic manifests. However, each Mormon, or fish, even the break-off fish, may have a set of beliefs about what true Mormonism is, the sociologist has no say, and no fish within the school or out has a privileged way of determining what direction the school should move in or what a true, divinely decreed Mormon doctrine really is. A lone, bitter apostate may be 100% right, and the entire church wrong on what is foundational to Mormonism. But that lone bitter apostate may not count toward what sociologists identify as the social organism called Mormonism. It helps to distinguish between Mormonism in descriptive terms and normative terms.