Let's all self-identify as Mormons

[Guest]

I really don't understand why this raises so many people's hackles.

After Mak graciously addressing my comments I agree. I was a little put off at first if he was really saying I had no right, authority or whatever to speak about Mormonism. He clearly was not saying that. Seems its been more of a semantical battle of if I have the right to tell Mak what Mormonism should be for him.

One thing I note about Mak, which is very much appreciated by me. He takes the time and responds to each individual.

It's one guy's view. It draws on lots of different areas of study, but it's his own synthesis. That's all.

Well it seems with the likes of givens, their followers, churchistrue and I assume others, it indeed does appear we have a new stereotype-able sub-set of Mormons.

Seems early on, the NOM's went through a similar hot period where they were "out-grouped" (see country hick adopt another new popular term) by both the orthodox and the ex/post/less active Mormons.

It is funny that I should be angry at Mak because he does not adhere to Babyboomer's Mormonism. How dare he agree with me on many issues that I want to protect my children/grandchildren from. Is he a sissyass Mormon or what?

If NOM's, Mak's (nuanced) and other liberals will help grass roots driven KILL babyboomer's Mormonism, I say ... go Mak, go!

And what's the matter with us for attacking him for it?

eta:

be careful Mak, remember what happened to Blair H. and --- crap my memory on names ...our Bible study expert, gone back to teaching kids ... when critics gave them support, they were instant wolfs.

[_malkie]

I really don't understand why this raises so many people's hackles.

After Mak graciously addressing my comments I agree. I was a little put off at first if he was really saying I had no right, authority or whatever to speak about Mormonism. He clearly was not saying that. Seems its been more of a systematical battle of if I have the right to tell Mak what Mormonism should be for him.

One thing I note about Mak, which is very much appreciated by me. He takes that time and responds to each individual.

It's one guy's view. It draws on lots of different areas of study, but it's his own synthesis. That's all.

Well it seems with the likes of givens and their followers, churchistrue and I assume others, it indeed does appear we have a new stereotype-able sub-set of Mormons.

Seems early on, the NOM's went through a similar hot period on where they were "out-grouped" (see country hick adopt another new popular term) by both the orthodox and the ex/post/less active Mormons.

It is funny that I should be angry at Mak because he does not adhere to Babyboomer's Mormonism. How dare he agree with me on many issues that I want to protect my children/grandchildren from. Is he a sissyass Mormon or what?

If NOM's, Mak's (nuanced) and other liberals will help grass roots driven KILL babyboomer's Mormonism, I say ... go Mak, go!

And what's the matter with us for attacking him for it?

"And what's the matter with us for attacking him for it?"

Hey, an easy question that even I can answer - or at least suggest possible (and possibly overlapping) answers to.

1. Some of us have fundamentally misunderstood mak from the start, and have assumed that he is more or less an old-style apologist. That is, he is automatically at least suspect, if not out-and-out enemy.

2. mak's terminology has made his arguments difficult to follow for some, and we have taken the worst of possible meanings from them. And we have assumed that this is yet another example of the need for the proverbial 3 PhDs in order to engage in the discussion.

3. Some of us are complacent in our disbeliefs in and/or antipathy towards the church, and would prefer an echo chamber, even if we say we wouldn't.

[_Sanctorian]

Afand will help grass roots driven KILL babyboomer's Mormonism, I say ... go Mak, go!

And what's the matter with us for attacking him for it?

I agree and in some respects support Mak. The church needs to change. But at the end of the day, the church is still fraud and anyone supporting it is supporting fraud. As a society, we should fight against fraud. Mak supports the fraud so unfortunately he gets attacked.

[_ludwigm]

So do you and I have equal authority at this table?

We both have one vote, so to speak.

See "gerrymandering" for more...
Utah (SLC...) vs the other part of the world.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here is a paper that discusses social identity theory. The section "Bases of Identity" describes what it means to self-identify with a group. It means a whole lot more than posting "I self-identify as X" on a message board. http://wat2146.ucr.edu/papers/00a.pdf

It looks to me like there is a difference in the process depending on whether you are a person constructing an identity or an observer watching someone construct an identity. If you are constructing an identify, the theory has you start with defining the category. Then, you define yourself in relation to the group -- are you in or out. Finally, your self-identified group membership builds your identity by using your concept of the group to give attributes to yourself.

If you are the sociologist observing this process, you define the group by deferring to the way the self-identified members of the group do it.

The question I'd have for both Mak and Sanctorian is, from the perspective of the person constructing an identity, how do you define what it means to be a "Mormon" and why do you place yourself in our out of that group using the concept of identification as used in the article. In other words, Mak, don't be the sociologist -- be what the sociologist is studying. ;-)

[_RockSlider]

I agree and in some respects support Mak. The church needs to change. But at the end of the day, the church is still fraud and anyone supporting it is supporting fraud. As a society, we should fight against fraud. Mak supports the fraud so unfortunately he gets attacked.

I view it as a means to an end ... unfortunately it will likely lead to yet more pain for members as they are ultimately brought to that line in the sand I suggest in the Fireside thread.

I can still hope my children's shelves can not bare the weight of a non-historical Book of Mormon.

[_Kishkumen]

The question I'd have for both Mak and Sanctorian is, from the perspective of the person constructing an identity, how do you define what it means to be a "Mormon" and why do you place yourself in our out of that group using the concept of identification as used in the article. In other words, Mak, don't be the sociologist -- be what the sociologist is studying. ;-)

There is plenty of wonderful material out there to build a positive Mormon identity on that does not require one to believe in the probity of Joseph Smith or the reality of the gold plates.

[_Lemmie]

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether anyone else counts me as Mormon or not. My self-identification is my own prerogative.

Well said. This is why I appreciate the Pew Research Center's surveys. It seems so logical now to ask people what religion they consider themselves affiliated with, but their work is still relatively new.

[_Kishkumen]

There should be a strong distinction drawn between being Mormon and being LDS. I am fine with not being LDS. Being LDS does not really appeal to me. I leave LDS identity to those who stand behind the Corporation. I am Mormon because my people are Mormon. They sacrificed, bled, froze, died, worked and fought for that honor. I carry on their legacy in my own way and by my own lights.

[_RockSlider]

There should be a strong distinction drawn between being Mormon and being LDS.

Too bad that only evolves after disaffection.