Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[Libs]

Why, exactly, should "Mormon," alone be empty of meaning?

I would say, it's rarely 'empty of meaning', when someone self-identifies as a Mormon. Either they believe most of the tenets of the church, or some variation of it, or they were born into the church, and even though they no longer believe, they still identify with Mormonism on a cultural level.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone, who had absolutely no affiliation with the church, calling themselves Mormon.

It feels like this is just a ploy to try and marginalize those cultural Mormons, who do still self-identify, as Mormon, but are no longer believers, in the traditional sense.

I still read the Book of Mormon, and even though I don't tell people I am Mormon, a part of me will always be, even though my beliefs are a bit different. I guess, I just take a little offense, when someone tries to draw circles to keep people out. It is exactly what Evangelicals do to Mormons, and I find that offensive, as well.

[Pahoran]

I would say, it's rarely 'empty of meaning', when someone self-identifies as a Mormon. Either they believe most of the tenets of the church, or some variation of it, or they were born into the church, and even though they no longer believe, they still identify with Mormonism on a cultural level.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone, who had absolutely no affiliation with the church, calling themselves Mormon.

It feels like this is just a ploy to try and marginalize those cultural Mormons, who do still self-identify, as Mormon, but are no longer believers, in the traditional sense.

I still read the Book of Mormon, and even though I don't tell people I am Mormon, a part of me will always be, even though my beliefs are a bit different. I guess, I just take a little offense, when someone tries to draw circles to keep people out. It is exactly what Evangelicals do to Mormons, and I find that offensive, as well.

That's right, it's all about you.

You know, instead of knee-jerk reacting that a discussion like this must be a "ploy," why don't you try taking people at their word?

I realise that it is oh so terribly PinC, not to mention most unfashionable, gauche and downright un-trendy, to want to "exclude" anyone from anything. However, a definition that excludes nothing really doesn't include anything; which means that it is empty of meaning.

I refer you back to my question above, now posted twice without a response: If Jane says to Mary "Bob is a Mormon," what should Mary, if she is averagely well-informed, understand by that?

Evidently your answer would be something like: She'd better ask Bob, because it means whatever he wants it to mean. Is that it?

Because if so, we are right in the "Humpty Dumpty" school of linguistics.

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

.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.

I have never expressed any opinion about that book, and in fact I have not read it to have an opinion on it. Please back up your statement with a reference, or withdraw your false accusation.

[Pahoran]

I have never expressed any opinion about that book, and in fact I have not read it to have an opinion on it. Please back up your statement with a reference, or withdraw your false accusation.

It was published in 1996 or thereabouts. It appeals to non-canonical sources. It's found on the Maxwell Institute website, and was put there before the Bradford putsch. IOW, it's right smack-dab in the middle of what you have elsewhere dismissed as bad scholarship and not real apologetics. What you describe as a "false accusation" is the entirely logical conclusion that flows from your own outpourings of comprehensive disdain.

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

It was published in 1996 or thereabouts. It appeals to non-canonical sources. It's found on the Maxwell Institute website, and was put there before the Bradford putsch. IOW, it's right smack-dab in the middle of what you have elsewhere dismissed as bad scholarship and not real apologetics. What you describe as a "false accusation" is the entirely logical conclusion that flows from your own outpourings of comprehensive disdain.

Regards,

Pahoran

I repeat, I have never read that book, and never expressed an opinion on it. Your accusation is false and defamatory. Please withdraw your accusation, an do not repeat it again.

[yootaw]

I refer you back to my question above, now posted twice without a response: If Jane says to Mary "Bob is a Mormon," what should Mary, if she is averagely well-informed, understand by that?

Regardless of Jane or Bob's definition of what it means to be a mormon, Mary would likely understand that Bob is a mormon as Mary understands the term.

Edited August 15, 2012 by yootaw

[Pahoran]

I repeat, I have never read that book, and never expressed an opinion on it. Your accusation is false and defamatory. Please withdraw your accusation, an do not repeat it again.

Let's see.

You elsewhere expressed a plenary opinion about the nature and quality of the apologetics produced by FARMS/MI prior to the Bradford putsch. Evidently you are now telling us that you formed that opinion without actually reading what they produced.

I therefore apologise for assuming that you had actually read what you were dismissing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wayfarer]

Bill, thank you for your blog posting. it stimulates discussion indeed.

I have come to view "belief" as intellectually dangerous. belief is an attachment to an idea, based upon a feeling of certainty. this feeling is often wrong. please see ”On Being Certain” by Robert Burton.

On the other hand, Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon speaks of having faith, something recognized to be less than knowledge, that we hope for, we trust enough to act or experiment upon, which is true. he uses belief and faith as words interchangeably, but we accept that the discourse is about faith. in the Alma 32 model, faith leads directly to outcomes that convert faith into knowledge without the need for inactive belief.

Consequently, I have faith that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and for me that Faith approaches knowledge, owing to the fruits i have experienced. belief does not compute in this, because i accept, with openness, the idea that he was a profoundly flawed.

I *know* the book of mormon is true to its purpose of testifying of christ, that it is divine scripture, and core to our church. it teaches the core principles of the gospel with plainness and clarity. I do not believe that it is historical in the least, and given the legitimate DNA and archeological evidence to contrary, i think my position is intellectually honest and legitimate. Further, Joseph did not translate it, but rather, used the same scrying technique with the same seerstone in a hat that landed him in criminal trouble. these things are commonly known to those open to look. But how do we accept the book of mormon as scripture? how can delusion or pious fraud be the work of the Lord? the answer is one word: "Deuteronomy" …”another (second) witness of the Law”…claimed likely by Josiah to be written by the hand of moses upon papyrus…sound familiar?

why should we, of mature faith and intellectual curiousity, be threatened by the truth? Paul recognized that we prophesy and know only in part, and as we come to know the more complete (telios) story, we are to cast aside the part that isn't true.

why should we insist that a "mormon" have a literalized, naive belief?

observant mormons are we, and in teaching, we teach in a church setting the principles of the gospel with clarity and conformity to published, correlated materials and so as to not stir questions before it's time. but why must we require a certain belief when the spirit and facts tell us otherwise as we grow in faith?

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[Pahoran]

Regardless of Jane or Bob's definition of what it means to be a mormon, Mary would likely understand that Bob is a mormon as Mary understands the term.

Great; we're nearly there.

So, assuming that Mary is averagely well informed, what would she understand the term to mean?

Alternatively, let's suppose she doesn't know very much about Mormons; after all, most people don't. So she reacts by saying something like: "Really? I didn't know that." What question will she ask next?

I suggest it will be something like, "What do Mormons believe?"

How would you answer her question?

If she asked me, I would probably refer her to the Articles of Faith.

But if she's Gen Y, and therefore doesn't have much of an attention span, I might refer her to something even shorter than that.

Like, for example, Bill's very brief -- and fairly inclusive -- list.

Because, let's face it: what Mormon really doesn't believe those things?

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Guys, people will have different definitions of words. You can't change that. As of such, you must realize that you can't take things fully for granted just because someone calls themselves 'Mormon'. People hold to different degrees. That's why it's good to watch their actions afterwards - so you can determine what type of Mormon they are - Cultural, tbm, or somewhere in between.

Yes, there is a problem with people misidentifying all mormons with what a few mormons do which we'd prefer not to be identified with. But insisting on a certain definition isn't going to change that. What will change that is explaining when people ask you that the person doesn't hold to certain laws, and such.

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[zerinus]

Let's see.

You elsewhere expressed a plenary opinion about the nature and quality of the apologetics produced by FARMS/MI prior to the Bradford putsch. Evidently you are now telling us that you formed that opinion without actually reading what they produced.

I therefore apologise for assuming that you had actually read what you were dismissing.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is not an acceptable apology. My previous statements did not necessitate the reading of that particular book for them to be valid, nor can they in any shape or form be construed as a comment on that particular book. Please withdraw your accusations unreservedly, and do not repeat them again.

Edited August 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Pahoran]

This is not an acceptable apology. My previous statements did not necessitate the reading of that particular book for them to be valid, nor can they in any shape or form be construed as a comment on that particular book. Please withdraw your accusations unreservedly, and do not repeat them again.

Try bullying someone else, Zerinus. The above is as good an apology as you're going to get.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

Bill, thank you for your blog posting. it stimulates discussion indeed.

I have come to view "belief" as intellectually dangerous. belief is an attachment to an idea, based upon a feeling of certainty. this feeling is often wrong. please see ”On Being Certain” by Robert Burton.

On the other hand, Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon speaks of having faith, something recognized to be less than knowledge, that we hope for, we trust enough to act or experiment upon, which is true. he uses belief and faith as words interchangeably, but we accept that the discourse is about faith. in the Alma 32 model, faith leads directly to outcomes that convert faith into knowledge without the need for inactive belief.

Consequently, I have faith that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and for me that Faith approaches knowledge, owing to the fruits i have experienced. belief does not compute in this, because i accept, with openness, the idea that he was a profoundly flawed.

I *know* the book of mormon is true to its purpose of testifying of christ, that it is divine scripture, and core to our church. it teaches the core principles of the gospel with plainness and clarity. I do not believe that it is historical in the least, and given the legitimate DNA and archeological evidence to contrary, i think my position is intellectually honest and legitimate. Further, Joseph did not translate it, but rather, used the same scrying technique with the same seerstone in a hat that landed him in criminal trouble. these things are commonly known to those open to look. But how do we accept the book of mormon as scripture? how can delusion or pious fraud be the work of the Lord? the answer is one word: "Deuteronomy" …”another (second) witness of the Law”…claimed likely by Josiah to be written by the hand of moses upon papyrus…sound familiar?

why should we, of mature faith and intellectual curiousity, be threatened by the truth? Paul recognized that we prophesy and know only in part, and as we come to know the more complete (telios) story, we are to cast aside the part that isn't true.

why should we insist that a "mormon" have a literalized, naive belief?

observant mormons are we, and in teaching, we teach in a church setting the principles of the gospel with clarity and conformity to published, correlated materials and so as to not stir questions before it's time. but why must we require a certain belief when the spirit and facts tell us otherwise as we grow in faith?

LIKE!

[zerinus]

Try bullying someone else, Zerinus. The above is as good an apology as you're going to get.

Regards,

Pahoran

That is a statement about your integrity (or lack thereof), not my bullying.

[Carborendum]

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...

Not quite.

The Temple interview specifically asks about testimony issues, e.g. "Do you believe in and have a testimony of..." several items.

That said...

While I felt the need to correct the statement "We don't inquire into people's beliefs..." I don't know how directly this affects a "definition" of Mormon. A friend of a friend has been a member of the Church for many years, very studious and intelligent. And yet (as a Jew) he just can't get his head around the concept of Jesus being the Son of God.

I'm thinking, ok. This one belief in the Christ-hood of Jesus is the central tenet of our faith. Without it everything else is meaningless. While the divine sonship is not necessarily equivalent, it is certainly a necessary part of that doctrine. How on earth can he consider himself a Mormon and believe as he does?

Yet, he remains active, lives the lifestyle, and self-identifies as Mormon. Go figure.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Carborendum

[Bill Hamblin]

Guys, people will have different definitions of words. You can't change that. As of such, you must realize that you can't take things fully for granted just because someone calls themselves 'Mormon'. People hold to different degrees. That's why it's good to watch their actions afterwards - so you can determine what type of Mormon they are - Cultural, tbm, or somewhere in between.

Yes, there is a problem with people misidentifying all mormons with what a few mormons do which we'd prefer not to be identified with. But insisting on a certain definition isn't going to change that. What will change that is explaining when people ask you that the person doesn't hold to certain laws, and such.

True enough. So people should use modifiers to clarify such things. The word Mormon should have a substantive intellectual meaning. If people don't agree with that essential concept, then they should use words like cultural Mormon, lapsed Mormon, unbelieving Mormon, non-orthodox Mormon, new order Mormon, etc. etc.

The problem really arises when atheists and apostates try to use the term Mormon in such a broad and meaningless way that it can include atheism, when in fact those ideas are antithetical to the essential intellectual content of the word Mormon. All they have to do is be clear. I'm asking for intellectual clarity. If they would simply say "I'm an atheist Mormon" then everything would be fine. Everyone would know where everyone else is coming from. But they don't do that. Instead they insist that they are just Mormons. There is a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in this.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

True enough. So people should use modifiers to clarify such things. The word Mormon should have a substantive intellectual meaning. If people don't agree with that essential concept, then they should use words like cultural Mormon, lapsed Mormon, unbelieving Mormon, non-orthodox Mormon, new order Mormon, etc. etc.

The problem really arises when atheists and apostates try to use the term Mormon in such a broad and meaningless way that it can include atheism, when in fact they are antithetical to the essential intellectual content of the word Mormon. All they have to do is be clear. I'm asking for intellectual clarity. If they would simply say "I'm an atheist Mormon" then everything would be fine. Everyone would know where everyone else is coming from. But they don't do that. Instead they insist that they are just Mormons. There is a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in this.

Funny, I was about to post along these lines.

[TAO]

There is a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in this.

Yeah, this is the part we probably have to worry about. In any case, I will try and do my part to clarify if I ever come across a person who has come up with the wrong interpretation of who we are based on this problem.

[zerinus]

True enough. So people should use modifiers to clarify such things. The word Mormon should have a substantive intellectual meaning. If people don't agree with that essential concept, then they should use words like cultural Mormon, lapsed Mormon, unbelieving Mormon, non-orthodox Mormon, new order Mormon, etc. etc.

They often do. My cousin is married to an inactive Mormon who regularly identifies herself as a "Jack Mormon".

Edited August 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Libs]

Most people who identify as a non-traditional Mormons are going to say so, upfront (as I already said) and even if they don't, I would say, generally speaking, they are not going to misrepresent Mormon doctrine, if asked, flat out, "what do Mormons believe?" They are going to tell people what "the church" teaches...not what they, personally, believe. Some may want to clarify that they don't believe all that the church teaches, afterwards, but I don't see that people passing off personal beliefs, as church teaching or doctrine, has been a problem....has it?

If someone asks me what Mormons believe, I am certainly not going to do a rundown on my own beliefs. Generally, I will tell them, basically, what was in Bill's intro post, and then refer them to mormon.org or lds.org for further information.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[yootaw]

Great; we're nearly there.

So, assuming that Mary is averagely well informed, what would she understand the term to mean?

Alternatively, let's suppose she doesn't know very much about Mormons; after all, most people don't. So she reacts by saying something like: "Really? I didn't know that." What question will she ask next?

I suggest it will be something like, "What do Mormons believe?"

How would you answer her question?

If she asked me, I would probably refer her to the Articles of Faith.

But if she's Gen Y, and therefore doesn't have much of an attention span, I might refer her to something even shorter than that.

Like, for example, Bill's very brief -- and fairly inclusive -- list.

Because, let's face it: what Mormon really doesn't believe those things?

Regards,

Pahoran

Me, for one. You may accurately say that in your opinion I don't represent a good example of a typical Mormon. But I don't believe that you are in a position to deny my claim as a Mormon, based on my own life experiences.

[Pahoran]

Most people who identify as a non-traditional Mormons are going to say so, upfront (as I already said) and even if they don't, I would say, generally speaking, they are not going to misrepresent Mormon doctrine, if asked, flat out, "what do Mormons believe?" They are going to tell people what "the church" teaches...not what they, personally, believe. Some may want to clarify that they don't believe all that the church teaches, afterwards, but I don't see that people passing off personal beliefs, as church teaching or doctrine, has been a problem....has it?

If someone asks me what Mormons believe, I am certainly not going to do a rundown on my own beliefs. Generally, I will tell them, basically, what was in Bill's intro post, and then refer them to mormon.org or lds.org for further information.

Two points:

1. The fact that "non-traditional" Mormons will generally say so (and I don't dispute that this is true) is at least a tacit admission that "Mormon," unqualified, denotes or implies something that doesn't actually apply to them. Which is to say, at very least, that it denotes or implies something. Thus, to work out just what it does imply or denote seems like a perfectly valid question.
   
2. The point is not to raise the question of whether Bob might or might not misrepresent LDS teaching when asked "What do Mormons believe?" The point is that, upon learning that Bob is a Mormon, a person unaquainted with the Church's teachings is going to naturally ask that question in order to find out something about Bob. The expression "Bob is a Mormon" => Bob believes what Mormons believe, hence the question. And hence Bill's blog post.
   

To say "X is a Mormon" conveys useful information about X only to the extent that being a Mormon is understood to say something about one's beliefs.

And it seems to me that it is far more meaningful to understand it that way than to suppose that it says something about someone's family background or geographical origins. Or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Me, for one. You may accurately say that in your opinion I don't represent a good example of a typical Mormon. But I don't believe that you are in a position to deny my claim as a Mormon, based on my own life experiences.

Great, someone else who thinks it's all about you.

So are you content to just say "I'm a Mormon" without any qualification, or do you generally describe yourself with some qualifiers, like "non-traditional" or "less-involved" or "non-believing?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

And it seems to me that it is far more meaningful to understand it that way than to suppose that it says something about someone's family background or geographical origins. Or something.

That's fine. But, the fact is, there are many people who self-identify, as Mormon, and it really does mean, mostly, something about family background. Mormons are their people and their ancestry. I don't, personally, have a problem with that...and I just don't think it should be a problem.

Do you propose that these people stop calling themselves "Mormons"?

[ANACO]

Mosiah 18:30; 3 Nephi 5:12; Mormon 1:5