Let's all self-identify as Mormons

[_sock puppet]

But of course as an out-grouper I didn't understand anything, and I was unable to make a moral assessment. In fact at one point I couldn't understand his words because... You know... Emic vs. Etic.

- Doc

By golly, Doc, I think you've got it!

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, that's not what I mean, but hold that thought for later. I would take everything he's said about the enlightenment, power structures, and deconstruction and put that in one basket (little credibility), and then everything he's said about sociology (credible but have to get through the shell game), and put that in another basket. My comment mixes up the baskets and so probably wasn't a good idea.

I guess my explanation was deficient. Consider this:

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10. ... 008-e-1585

normative theory: Hypotheses or other statements about what is right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, just or unjust in society. The majority of sociologists consider it illegitimate to move from explanation to evaluation. In their view, sociology should strive to be value-free, objective, or at least to avoid making explicit value-judgements. This is because, according to the most popular philosophies of the social sciences, conflicts over values cannot be settled factually.

Suppose we're going with "the majority of sociologists" here. In what sense can a sociologist tell us what a foundational truth of Mormonism is?

Compare these two statements:

Our research shows Mormon women typically wear one earring although wearing two is normal. Many women who responded in either case did not seem aware of official guidance on this matter, and many who wear one earring responded that they would wear two, but prefer to wear one. One earring seems to be the norm.

Verily verily I say unto you my servant Gordon. It is not given that the woman should pierceth her ear twice and adorn herself with two earrings. For it has been decreed before the foundation of the world that this is so, and thus, it is given as my true commandment to this, the only true church on the face of the earth that the woman shall wear but a single earring.

Suppose a world where both of these statements have been made. In what sense would a former member critic who says a foundational belief of Mormonism is that women can only wear one earring wrong, and how does he fail to reflect Mormon belief? In what way is a TBM who says it's OK to wear two earrings right -- rightly reflects Mormon belief?

Not sure i'm getting it. According to your quote on sociology, I'm not sure a sociologist could ever tell us what a foundational truth of Mormonism is. That would require evaluation in addition to observation. A sociologist could tell us what Mormons say their foundational truths are or what leaders say the foundational truths are. But I don't think they could, according to your quote, state what the foundational truths actually are.

In response to the comparison questions. The former member critic could be considered wrong because, in fact, the majority of Mormon women aren't aware of any "truth" at all about earrings, and so the prohibition against more than one earring would not be a foundational truth among actual Mormons. The TBM could be wrong, assuming that most Mormons would concur that statements made by god directly to prophets that purport to be foundational truths are, in fact, foundational truths.

There are too many ways to slice this for me to make much sense out of it.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Given what I believe has been the cynical deployment of postmodern arguments by monologists in the past, I understand your initial suspicion. But what Mak is arguing looks different to me.

I agree that not distinguishing between de jure (what leaders and scripture say) and de facto (what Mormons in fact believe and do) will create a tangled mess. It does seem to me, though, that each perspective can be instructive depending on context. Mak's argument, I think, has been aimed at a process of creating a cartoon straw man of Mormonism that can be easily beat upon by critics here. I think he has a point when he contrasts the straw man with what Mormons actually believe and do. My own experience with Mormon friends and family is that the relationship between them and their religion cannot be distilled down to "pay, pray and obey," even though that's a nice rhyming phrase.

On the other hand, as a former Mormon critic, I part ways with Mak when he says the truth claims of Mormonism are not important to him. They are to me. I don't particularly care that there are self-identified Mormons out there who both self-identify as Mormons and who are persuaded that what the COTCOLDS presents as its foundational truth claims are false. So, depending on the question being asked, I'd agree that the perspective shifts from sociological observer to interested former member. I find Mak's arguments interesting as long as I consider them from one of those perspectives -- I don't really consider them relevant from the other.