Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

I offer my views here on my blog.

[Libs]

It seems like, if the church adhered to such a list, they would remove from the rolls, people who no longer fulfill those basic "requirements" you have set up.

I would say a Mormon is anyone who has been baptized into the church and identifies as a Mormon, even if their beliefs are somewhat unorthodox..

[Bill Hamblin]

It seems like, if the church adhered to such a list, they would remove from the rolls, people who no longer fulfill those basic "requirements" you have set up.

I would say a Mormon is anyone who has been baptized into the church and identifies as a Mormon, even if their beliefs are somewhat unorthodox..

I'm not talking about church membership. I'm talking about a coherent intellectual content associated with the term Mormon.

[ksfisher]

It seems like, if the church adhered to such a list, they would remove from the rolls, people who no longer fulfill those basic "requirements" you have set up.

I would say a Mormon is anyone who has been baptized into the church and identifies as a Mormon, even if their beliefs are somewhat unorthodox..

The church does, in a way, adhere to these requirements. Those four points are part of the baptisimal interview questions asked by the missionaries before a convert is baptized. If we, as members, don't have a testimony of these basic parts of the gospel can we really say that we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Or are we just self identified Mormons.

[mfbukowski]

The church does, in a way, adhere to these requirements. Those four points are part of the baptisimal interview questions asked by the missionaries before a convert is baptized. If we, as members, don't have a testimony of these basic parts of the gospel can we really say that we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Or are we just self identified Mormons.

And then of course there is the temple recommend interview which extends the requirements and covenants.

All of the proposed requirements are included on the temple recommend interview, and others as well.

[altersteve]

I agree with everything in your blog post, Brother Hamblin.

[KevinG]

I think priesthood authority needs to be mentioned. We sustain general and local authorities in our Ward, Stake and General conferences.

Edited August 14, 2012 by KevinG

[cwald]

I don't think so. Yes, we do have interviews, but we are a creedless organization...JS demanded it be such, and I have yet to hear any prophet come out and make a statement that folks HAVE to believe these things to called a Mormon.

[Damien the Leper]

Not to over-simplify the discussion but just as the gays don't own rainbows neither does the LDS church own the label of Mormon. Mormon isn't a specific and calculated descriptor of a person. Mormon is, just as the term Christian is, multi-flavored.

The Restoration movement attests to this.

[Ahab]

I offer my views here on my blog.

The people who first started calling us "Mormons" in this dispensation had a different take on it, I think.

To them, we didn't believe in Jesus Christ, and most people today agree with them on that point. To them, we still don't.

Also, to them, we don't believe in a God, either, or at least we don't know which one really is.

Strike those 2 off of your list of 4 and look at what we have now.

We believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God? Yep, we still believe that.

We believe in Thomas S. Monson as a prophet of God? Well, the earlier saints didn't even know he was going to be born, so is that one really necessary? They didn't seem to think so.

So now let's look at what we have left:

We believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Well, maybe it depends on which God we are talking about. They certainly didn't and still don't believe Joseph was a prophet of the God they worship.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

What's the purpose of this definition?

Suppose we all agree right now and "ratify" the definition proposed?

What will change? Who cares about our definition? What will be done with it?

[zerinus]

I offer my views here on my blog.

"A Mormon" is any card carrying member of the Church who identifies himself as such. As long as the Church continues to acknowledge and recognize him/her as a Mormon, he/she is a Mormon. We don't lay down the criteria for who is or is not a Mormon; the Church does.

If your question relates to the basic beliefs by which a Mormon should typically be identified by, that varies depending on whom you ask, and when. When Joseph Smith was asked what distinguishes his Church from other churches, he replied the gift of the Holy Ghost! On another occasion, in response to the question, “What are the fundamental principles of your religion?” He replied, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” Still on another occasion, in response to a similar question, he dictated the Articles of Faith. If you asked an anti-Mormon that question, he might give you a different answer still from his own perspective. So the answer to your question is, it depends on whom you ask, and when.

In the Church today we don't inquire into people's beliefs, as long as they obey the Church's rules and abstain from serious transgressions. If they behave and conduct themselves humbly and peaceably, keep the commandments, and sin not, what they believe is immaterial to their standing in the Church.

Edited August 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Bill Hamblin]

What's the purpose of this definition?

Suppose we all agree right now and "ratify" the definition proposed?

What will change? Who cares about our definition? What will be done with it?

Nothing. It's just exploring an issue.

[Bill Hamblin]

"A Mormon" is any card carrying member of the Church who identifies himself as such. As long as the Church continues to acknowledge and recognize him/her as a Mormon, he/she is a Mormon. We don't lay down the criteria for who is or is not a Mormon; the Church does.

If your question relates to the basic beliefs by which a Mormon should typically be identified by, that varies depending on whom you ask, and when. When Joseph Smith was asked what distinguishes his Church from other churches, he replied the gift of the Holy Ghost! On another occasion, in response to the question, “What are the fundamental principles of your religion?” He replied, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” Still on another occasion, in response to a similar question, he dictated the Articles of Faith. If you asked an anti-Mormon that question, he might give you a different answer still from his own perspective. So the answer to your question is, it depends on whom you ask, and when.

In the Church today we don't inquire into people's beliefs, as long as they obey the Church's rules and abstain from serious transgressions. If they behave and conduct themselves humbly and peaceably, keep the commandments, and sin not, what they believe is immaterial to their standing in the Church.

All that may be true, but I still find it utterly incoherent for an atheist to claim he's a Mormon (and I know some who have). It's as ridiculous as a theist to claim he's an atheist because he used to not believe in God, and his parents and family are all atheists, and he likes to socialize with atheists, and he's really a cultural atheist. Would anyone take that claim seriously?

[Libs]

Bill, I guess you can draw your own lines, if you wish, but I quite agree with Zerinus (which is very unusual!).

I don't think we can expect all 14 million LDS to agree to an exact definition of "Mormon". Like the term Christian, there will be variations on what it means to be a Mormon..

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I guess you can draw your own lines, if you wish, but I quite agree with Zerinus (which is very unusual!).

I don't think we can expect all 14 million LDS to agree to an exact definition of "Mormon". Like the term Christian, there will be variations on what it means to be a Mormon..

Can't we expect that a person who is a Mormon believes in God? Mormonism is, after all, a religion?

Can't we expect that a person who is a Mormon should believe in Jesus Christ? It is, after all, called "The Church of Jesus Christ".

This seems so utterly obvious to me. Anyone can believe whatever they want, of course, but this seems really basic to me. If these two basic beliefs aren't implied in the name Mormon, then there is nothing whatsoever one needs to believe to be a Mormon. The term, therefore, bares no cognitive meaning whatsoever. It is a nonsense word. It's like theistic-atheist, or capitalistic-Marxist, or Republican-Democrat.

[zerinus]

All that may be true, but I still find it utterly incoherent for an atheist to claim he's a Mormon (and I know some who have). It's as ridiculous as a theist to claim he's an atheist because he used to not believe in God, and his parents and family are all atheists, and he likes to socialize with atheists, and he's really a cultural atheist. Would anyone take that claim seriously?

Your logic sounds a lot like the logic of those who say that Mormons aren't Christians. From my point of view, a Christian is anybody who considers himself to be a Christian. I don't inquire into his beliefs to make that determination. Likewise, from my perspective a Mormon is anybody who identifies himself as a Mormon, and the Church has not rejected him from being such by excommunication. If he fulfils those conditions then he is a Mormon, regardless of what he personally believes in.

[zerinus]

Can't we expect that a person who is a Mormon believes in God? Mormonism is, after all, a religion?

Can't we expect that a person who is a Mormon should believe in Jesus Christ? It is, after all, called "The Church of Jesus Christ".

This seems so utterly obvious to me. Anyone can believe whatever they want, of course, but this seems really basic to me. If these two basic beliefs aren't implied in the name Mormon, then there is nothing whatsoever one needs to believe to be a Mormon. The term, therefore, bares no cognitive meaning whatsoever. It is a nonsense word. It's like theistic-atheist, or capitalistic-Marxist, or Republican-Democrat.

If he doesn't believe in God, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, the prophet, the Church, or the Book of Mormon, then he is an unbelieving Mormon; but still a Mormon, as long as he remains a member in good standing.

[Bill Hamblin]

If he doesn't believe in God, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, the prophet, the Church, or the Book of Mormon, then he is an unbelieving Mormon; but still a Mormon, as long as he remains a member in good standing.

Kind of like an atheist is an unbelieving theist. Got it.

[yootaw]

Kind of like an atheist is an unbelieving theist. Got it.

In my opinion, more like a C&E catholic.

[Pahoran]

Bill, I guess you can draw your own lines, if you wish, but I quite agree with Zerinus (which is very unusual!).

I don't think we can expect all 14 million LDS to agree to an exact definition of "Mormon". Like the term Christian, there will be variations on what it means to be a Mormon..

I don't think the point is to get the Latter-day Saints to agree on what it means. It's not even our term; it was first applied to living people by non-Mormons, and is still most pervasively used by them.

It seems to me that the point of the discussion is to try to work out what the term means in everyday conversation. If Jane says to Mary "Bob is a Mormon," what should Mary, if she is averagely well-informed, understand by that?

Perhaps less importantly -- but certainly more hotly contested -- if someone says "I'm a Mormon," what can we expect people to resonably conclude? If I smoke, drink, mow my lawn on Sunday mornings, watch Monday night football, am I still a Mormon if I assent to the points Bill has listed?

OTOH, if I smoke, drink, mow my lawn on Sunday mornings, watch Monday night football and deny the points on Bill's list, can I still call myself a Mormon because I was born in Parowan, Utah?

Or because I've written a book attacking the truth claims of the Church, and my publisher has told me it'll be easier to market if I'm a Mormon for that purpose?

Alternatively, I was born in a Presbyterian-dominated area, to a then nominally Presbyterian family. Does that make me a Presbyterian?

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

Kind of like an atheist is an unbelieving theist. Got it.

Atheism is not an organized religion with an ecclesiastical structure and line of authority. You don't identify a Mormon in the same way that you identify an atheist. You don't have to belong to the Atheist Church to be an atheist, as you have to be a member of the LDS Church to be a Mormon. Also, atheism is a declaration of unbelief, whereas Mormonism (or Christianity) is a declaration of belief. Atheism is a negative declaration, whereas Christianity is a positive declaration. They cannot be categorized in the same way.

Edited August 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Libs]

I don't think the point is to get the Latter-day Saints to agree on what it means. It's not even our term; it was first applied to living people by non-Mormons, and is still most pervasively used by them.

It seems to me that the point of the discussion is to try to work out what the term means in everyday conversation. If Jane says to Mary "Bob is a Mormon," what should Mary, if she is averagely well-informed, understand by that?

Perhaps less importantly -- but certainly more hotly contested -- if someone says "I'm a Mormon," what can we expect people to resonably conclude? If I smoke, drink, mow my lawn on Sunday mornings, watch Monday night football, am I still a Mormon if I assent to the points Bill has listed?

OTOH, if I smoke, drink, mow my lawn on Sunday mornings, watch Monday night football and deny the points on Bill's list, can I still call myself a Mormon because I was born in Parowan, Utah?

Or because I've written a book attacking the truth claims of the Church, and my publisher has told me it'll be easier to market if I'm a Mormon for that purpose?

Alternatively, I was born in a Presbyterian-dominated area, to a then nominally Presbyterian family. Does that make me a Presbyterian?

Regards,

Pahoran

If someone self-identifies as a Mormon, and they are really mostly a cultural Mormon, I have found that they will usually tell you that.

I just don't see the point of this exercise. I agree with Zerinus that it is similar to the "Mormons are not Christians" debate. Same principle.

[yootaw]

If someone self-identifies as a Mormon, and they are really mostly a cultural Mormon, I have found that they will usually tell you that.

I just don't see the point of this exercise. I agree with Zerinus that it is similar to the "Mormons are not Christians" debate. Same principle.

Agreed.

[Pahoran]

If someone self-identifies as a Mormon, and they are really mostly a cultural Mormon, I have found that they will usually tell you that.

Mostly. Probably not if they're using it to promote a book.

But I come back to the earlier question: If Jane says to Mary "Bob is a Mormon," what should Mary, if she is averagely well-informed, understand by that?

If somebody says to me "George is a Trotskyite," I conclude that George believes that a command economy is better than a free market, and that the proletariat should overthrow the ruling classes; IOW, the statement tells me something about George's beliefs. If I'm told that Julie is a Buddhist, that tells me something about her beliefs. The same is true for a hundred other such ideological labels. Why, exactly, should "Mormon," alone be empty of meaning?

I just don't see the point of this exercise. I agree with Zerinus that it is similar to the "Mormons are not Christians" debate. Same principle.

No. It is not.

One of the apologetic exercises that Zerinus so deeply disdains was the book Offenders for a Word, by Dan Peterson and Steven S. Ricks. It demonstrated conclusively that the "Mormons aren't Christians" argument relied upon unarticulated assumptions, equivocations, faulty generalisations and a complete lack of methodological rigour. Bill's approach, in attempting to come up with a set of minimal criteria that would make sense, is exactly the opposite of that argument.

Incidentally, given that Offenders is an example of the kind of apologetics that Zerinus disdains, I hope he will continue to disdain Mormon apologetics.

Regards,

Pahoran