Let's all self-identify as Mormons

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here's the kind of thing you can expect to happen when it comes to defining or re-defining Mormonism into something other than what is generally accepted:

Father checks in to warn me about the Anti-Christ (a.k.a. John Dehlin) (self.exmormon)

submitted 11 hours ago * by WhatHastThouDunn

Dear Dad, I did not lose my testimony because I viewed "John Dehlin's filth." I lost my testimony because I tried to mix faith with science and reason. Then I found the church essays and my doubts were replaced with disbelief and anger at being deceived. John Dehlins "filth" helped me to realize I was not alone, and helped me to overcome depression, loneliness, despair, anger, and fear. I find it troubling that a complete stranger has more empathy and understanding for me than my own father. Furthermore do you think I don't already know about the pain I'm causing my wife and mother? The only thing your guilt trip will make me do is to discontinue being open and honest to you. But no matter how much guilt you try to send my way you can never make me be dishonest with myself. Not this time. Not ever again.

This is what I was attempting to get at in Sanctorian's "New Mormonism is just like old Mormonism" thread ref Mr. Mak's attempt to effectuate change at a "grassroots" level. The backlash that happens is often severe and uncompromising which caused me to express a bit of empathy for him... Which I pretty much regret doing at this point.

I don't think trying to fit a nuanced view of Mormonism (Nu-Mormonism) at a "grassroots" level is possible. I think it's the corporation that has to make changes, and as such, corporations change to accommodate the marketplace, or they go out of business. Perhaps Mr. Mak can act as an agent of change from within, a sort of 'enlightened Machiavelli' who influences the various princes with whom he rubs elbows? I don't know. It's a tough go, and he has to be careful if he wants to continue suckle at that sweet, sweet tithe payer's teat.

- Doc

[_Symmachus]

Mak, I have to agree with Sock on this one, The Mormon religion, the "Church", seems very anti-individual ... coming full circle into concepts of cultism. Using individualism as a foundation of conversation to understand Mormonism makes no sense in this light

I wonder whether Mak would say that you are conflating the Church and Mormonism into one thing, when they are actually separate (despite the Church's claims to being sole proprietor). There certainly is, though, a great deal of individualism inherent to the notion that self-identification with a group means belonging to that group. It seems to me a very American idea that you can just be something because you choose to claim that you are that something, no matter what the criteria of the group you claim to belong might be according to others and how those criteria might be structured and ranked by other members of the group. One can self-identify as X while not actually gaining the recognition of belonging to X in any significant way by others who self-identify as X. Does that mean the self-identifier is not X? Not necessarily, but it means you have to give pretty compelling reasons why we should take that self-identifier as seriously as (not to say more seriously than) the majority when we are discussing group X.

Unless I've missed something in these various threads, I'm surprised no one has brought up Rachel Dolezal.

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?

As John Gee might say: Bull's eye!

[_ludwigm]

To adhere to the title:
- My wife believes everything she was taught. Book of Mormon story, urimthummim, lessons, manuals, seminary (nothing to do with real ones), conferences etc.
- I read everything pro and against, have an opinion if they are true or lie (I may err sometimes, and I accept it).

Who is more Mormon? She or I?

Or both?

[_Symmachus]

To adhere to the title:
- My wife believes everything she was taught. Book of Mormon story, urimthummim, lessons, manuals, seminary (nothing to do with real ones), conferences etc.
- I read everything pro and against, have an opinion if they are true or lie (I may err sometimes, and I accept it).

Who is more Mormon? She or I?

Or both?

Ludwigm was a bigwig in the Hungarian military.

I hereby self-identify as Hungarian.

Who is more Hungarian: him or me?

[_ludwigm]

To adhere to the title:
- My wife believes everything she was taught. Book of Mormon story, urimthummim, lessons, manuals, seminary (nothing to do with real ones), conferences etc.
- I read everything pro and against, have an opinion if they are true or lie (I may err sometimes, and I accept it).

Who is more Mormon? She or I?

Or both?

Ludwigm was a bigwig in the Hungarian military.

I hereby self-identify as Hungarian.

Who is more Hungarian: him or me?

OK, pal... Without any revulsion; a check only. I may call it a play. Be my guest!

As far as I know, there are tests of nationality. Even in US.
Please translate to English (google fails...):

Még nyílnak a völgyben a kerti virágok,
Még zöldel a nyárfa az ablak előtt,
De látod amottan a téli világot?
Már hó takará el a bérci tetőt.
Még ifju szivemben a lángsugarú nyár
S még benne virít az egész kikelet,
De íme sötét hajam őszbe vegyűl már,
A tél dere már megüté fejemet.

The translation of George Szirtes doesn't count; here is:

Below in the valley the flowers are resplendent,
Outside by the window the poplars still glow,
But see where the winter, already ascendant,
Has covered the far distant hilltops with snow.
My heart is still bathed in the fierce sun of passion,
All spring is in bloom there, by spring breezes tossed,
But look how my hair turns hoary and ashen,
Its raven black touched by the premature frost.

Are You Hungarian yet?
That man is. My age-group.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It seems to me a very American idea that you can just be something because you choose to claim that you are that something, no matter what the criteria of the group you claim to belong might be according to others and how those criteria might be structured and ranked by other members of the group. One can self-identify as X while not actually gaining the recognition of belonging to X in any significant way by others who self-identify as X. Does that mean the self-identifier is not X? Not necessarily, but it means you have to give pretty compelling reasons why we should take that self-identifier as seriously as (not to say more seriously than) the majority when we are discussing group X.

Unless I've missed something in these various threads, I'm surprised no one has brought up Rachel Dolezal.

This is an interesting perspective. Is Mormonism just Identity Politics? And I do feel comfortable using that term since Mormonism, much like Islam, has set itself up as a Total System (Kingdom of God, etc...).

I guess the real question is if you slap enough foundation on your face, and you get a job representing the in-group, does that make you Mormon Afro-American?



V/R
Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Also, let's not forget the September Six regarding self-identification.

- Doc

[_grindael]

I wasn't buying it then, and I'm still not buying it now.

[_RockSlider]

Are You Hungarian yet?
That man is. My age-group.

Sorry ludwigm, we learned earlier, that Symmachus has a place at the table, one vote ... you have a place at the table ... one vote. The Nationality issue is a different thing ... like Mormonism is to LDS.

Maybe I'll pull up a chair too.

[_sock puppet]

you have to give pretty compelling reasons why we should take that self-identifier as seriously as (not to say more seriously than) the majority when we are discussing group X.

Exactly. If you are discussing a particular person, A, that self-identifies as X, then your general knowledge about X might not all apply in all respects to A. So if your topic is A who self-identifies as X, then you may need to delve deeper than just the assumptions that come from your general knowledge about X.

On the other hand, if you 'are discussing group X' then the normative information about X is the most accurate.