Is he saying you can't understand or is he saying that your group self-identification will necessarily affect how you understand?
I guess he'll have to answer. What I interpret he is saying is that I have no right to label what Mormonism is or isn't, make claims regarding Mormonism is or isn't, or make a determination what Mormonism is or isn't unless I self-identify with it, or something like that.
Is he saying you can't understand or is he saying that your group self-identification will necessarily affect how you understand?
I guess he'll have to answer. What I interpret he is saying is that I have no right to label what Mormonism is or isn't, make claims regarding Mormonism is or isn't, or make a determination what Mormonism is or isn't unless I self-identify with it, or something like that.
Do you think there is a difference between understanding and speaking with an authoritative voice?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote: Do you think there is a difference between understanding and speaking with an authoritative voice?
Here is the problem that I think Mak is running into. Are you suggesting you can't speak authoritatively unless you are a Mormon on record or if you self-identify as Mormon? I think that's what Mak is suggesting. You can only be an authoritative voice if you self-identify as Mormon. It's all very confusing in New Mormonism. I think that's the point. Make it as confusing as possible so Mormonism is no longer identified by any of it's unique (weird by societies standards) identifiers.
Sanctorian wrote:I'm not in the habit of lying either, far from it. I'm just trying to understand Mak's point of view that somehow you have to self-identify as a Mormon to understand Mormonism.
I have directly and explicitly told you multiple times that this is absolutely not what I am saying. Why do you insist on willfully misrepresenting me?
Sanctorian wrote:Mormonism in the very fabrics of who I am. I speak the language and vernacular, I associate with other Mormons, I was baptized, I served a mission and held callings in bishoprics, sealed to my spouse in the temple, gave priesthood blessings to my children, etc. But to Mak that isn't enough for me to understand Mormonism unless I publicly self-identify as one.
I don't think we can judge how the social identity theory model should or shouldn't be used to adjust beliefs or behaviors of participants in the society being modeled as society comes to learn about the model.
Once new Mormons start convincing people that SIT is true, implying that community beliefs are arbitrary by any essentialist measure, it's going to impact the beliefs of the society right down to the way folks sel-identify.
Maybe you should take a few more courses on this before you start trying to beating ideas over the head with it.
Sanctorian wrote:What I interpret he is saying is that I have no right to label what Mormonism is or isn't, make claims regarding Mormonism is or isn't, or make a determination what Mormonism is or isn't unless I self-identify with it, or something like that.
I'm saying you don't have authority over any conceptualization of Mormonism. You can observe and describe, but you don't have the right to tell any Mormon their perspective is wrong.
Sanctorian wrote:Here is the problem that I think Mak is running into.
Really it's the problem you're running into.
Sanctorian wrote:Are you suggesting you can't speak authoritatively unless you are a Mormon on record or if you self-identify as Mormon? I think that's what Mak is suggesting. You can only be an authoritative voice if you self-identify as Mormon.
More or less.
Sanctorian wrote:It's all very confusing in New Mormonism.
What's confusing about that? What is "New Mormonism"? Do you not understand that declaring a "New Mormonism" is precisely the kind of authoritative decree that is outside the scope of your purview?
Sanctorian wrote:I think that's the point. Make it as confusing as possible so Mormonism is no longer identified by any of it's unique (weird by societies standards) identifiers.
It would certainly fit your rhetoric if it were all an elaborate smokescreen, but it would also be a laughably naïve assumption.
Sanctorian wrote:I'm not in the habit of lying either, far from it. I'm just trying to understand Mak's point of view that somehow you have to self-identify as a Mormon to understand Mormonism.
I have directly and explicitly told you multiple times that this is absolutely not what I am saying. Why do you insist on willfully misrepresenting me?
I'm not misrepresenting you. If I fail to understand your position, I apologize. This is my current understanding of our conversation.
Sanctorian wrote:I'm not misrepresenting you. If I fail to understand your position, I apologize. This is my current understanding of our conversation.
I have had to repeatedly emphasize that I am not addressing understanding Mormonism, but speaking authoritatively about it, particularly against those who identify as Mormon.
Sanctorian wrote:What I interpret he is saying is that I have no right to label what Mormonism is or isn't, make claims regarding Mormonism is or isn't, or make a determination what Mormonism is or isn't unless I self-identify with it, or something like that.
I'm saying you don't have authority over any conceptualization of Mormonism. You can observe and describe, but you don't have the right to tell any Mormon their perspective is wrong.
Yes I do because I self-identify with it. I have the same authority that you have. Our opinions and perspective are unique to each other, but I have the same authority as you do to express my conceptualization of Mormonism.
And for the record, I have never said anyone's perspective is wrong. I actually agree with your perspective in that it's unique to you. I make it very clear that my opinions are mine and my analysis is based on my experiences.