Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[yootaw]

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.

I can see your point of view, although I think the term intellectual dishonest maybe is a bit over the top. I am a cultural Mormon. I've used that descriptor in conversation before, and I think that it works well in context. But, in my heart, I am a Mormon.

[Pahoran]

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"?

How self-absorbed do you have to be? When, if ever, is it going to sink in that this discussion is not all about you?

The question is about words and their meanings. If being a "Mormon" simply means "I feel like calling myself that today," then it doesn't actually mean anything at all; since it doesn't mean anything, it conveys no information; and if it conveys no information, we might as well stop using it.

But just so you know: being a Mormon is not about ancestry, it's about conviction. We are a missionary church. Most Mormons do not have ancestors who shoved handcarts across Nebraska.

How does that apply to ex-Mormons, fringe-Mormons and others? Well, choices involve discarding alternatives. You've chosen to be something other than a Mormon. It's as simple as that.

Being a Mormon is about being and becoming, not about who you're related to. When Steve Benson relies on his grandfather's position in the Church to give his hostile, sophomoric ventings authority, he's essentially being a parasite. So, though perhaps to a lesser extent, is a proselytizing atheist blogger who might have been a Mormon once.

And perhaps they're not the only ones.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

How self-absorbed do you have to be? When, if ever, is it going to sink in that this discussion is not all about you?

Uh... Pahoran... I don't think she was being self-absorbed. She feels however that alot of people who aren't TBMs ususally do a good job at identifying themselves as not TBMs. I don't think she was objecting to our conclusion that some of them don't... I think she just wanted to say that a good number of them do... which, I would say, is true.

Best of WIshes,

-TAO

[Libs]

How self-absorbed do you have to be? When, if ever, is it going to sink in that this discussion is not all about you?

The question is about words and their meanings. If being a "Mormon" simply means "I feel like calling myself that today," then it doesn't actually mean anything at all; since it doesn't mean anything, it conveys no information; and if it conveys no information, we might as well stop using it.

But just so you know: being a Mormon is not about ancestry, it's about conviction. We are a missionary church. Most Mormons do not have ancestors who shoved handcarts across Nebraska.

How does that apply to ex-Mormons, fringe-Mormons and others? Well, choices involve discarding alternatives. You've chosen to be something other than a Mormon. It's as simple as that.

Being a Mormon is about being and becoming, not about who you're related to. When Steve Benson relies on his grandfather's position in the Church to give his hostile, sophomoric ventings authority, he's essentially being a parasite. So, though perhaps to a lesser extent, is a proselytizing atheist blogger who might have been a Mormon once.

And perhaps they're not the only ones.

Regards,

Pahoran

You are sounding very hostile.

Where have I said this is about "me"? I don't call myself a Mormon....haven't for along time. I don't consider this conversation about "me". But, I'm not going to try and draw circles around the word.

This is a useless discussion and is not really going to change anything. It's just, potentially, going to create unnecessary divisions and hard feelings. (Yes, yes, I know you could care less)

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

Thank you, TAO. You are a voice of reason.

[mfbukowski]

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.

There is a point though beyond which he could be excommunicated for apostasy if he would advocate those positions. I agree with Bill actually in that it doesn't make sense to be an atheist and be a "Mormon" but people do things that don't make sense all the time.

I mean it doesn't make sense to walk down the street yelling obscenities and waving your arms, but people do that. I just can't see that there is anything to discuss in the fact that people do things that don't make sense- ?

[zerinus]

How self-absorbed do you have to be? When, if ever, is it going to sink in that this discussion is not all about you?

Libs is not a Mormon at all, and would not even identify herself as a Mormon. I suggest you stop attacking individuals and address their arguments instead.

[Evangeline]

...[P]eople 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.

I find it interesting that some feel the need to use a modifier to label those who accept the central tenets of the faith. Thus "TBM." It appears that the word "Mormon" has already lost much of its meaning (at least in some contexts) when we feel the need to clarify that we actually believe in the religion.

[zerinus]

I find it interesting that some feel the need to use a modifier to label those who accept the central tenets of the faith. Thus "TBM." It appears that the word "Mormon" has already lost much of its meaning (at least in some contexts) when we feel the need to clarify that we actually believe in the religion.

That may be true for the tiny minority who may feel the need to use such modifiers (for themselves or for others); but it is not true of the vast majority who don't.

[Evangeline]

That may be true for the tiny minority who may feel the need to use such modifiers (for themselves or for others); but it is not true of the vast majority who don't.

I agree that would be the case right now, but it appears to be an increasingly popular trend (at least in some circles on the internet). Perhaps that's partly why Dr. Hamblin felt the need to bring up the topic?

[Libs]

I find it interesting that some feel the need to use a modifier to label those who accept the central tenets of the faith. Thus "TBM." It appears that the word "Mormon" has already lost much of its meaning (at least in some contexts) when we feel the need to clarify that we actually believe in the religion.

I think you will find that occurs in most all religions. When Joanna Brooks was on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart mentioned the divisions within Judaism (Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, etc), which are really not such a big deal, today. And, yes, many Jews are also atheists. He mentioned the fact that the LDS religion is still in it's infancy, and so these differences are still being worked out.

But, you will find that most religions have a continuum of belief and believers, from atheist/cultural to hard core believer who accepts every single word. It's not unusual and bound to happen in any large organization.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[zerinus]

I agree that would be the case right now, but it appears to be an increasingly popular trend (at least in some circles on the internet). Perhaps that's partly why Dr. Hamblin felt the need to bring up the topic?

I am not so sure about that.

[Evangeline]

I am not so sure about that.

Well, I'm not entirely sure either. I have no desire to argue with you about it. It's merely a personal observation.

[Evangeline]

I think you will find that occurs in most all religions. When Joanna Brooks was on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart mentioned the divisions within Judaism (Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, etc), which are really not such a big deal, today. And, yes, many Jews are also atheists. He mentioned the fact that the LDS religion is still in it's infancy, and so these differences are still being worked out.

But, you will find that most religions have a continuum of belief and believers, from atheist/cultural to hard core believer who accepts every single word. It's not unusual and bound to happen in any large organization.

I think it is a stretch to compare the LDS religion to Judaism in this way. Judaism is more than a religion. It has also been described as a "race, a culture, and a nation," as well as "an extended family." Here's one source: http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

On the other hand, the Brethren seem to want to protect the identity of the Church. There is definitely an allowance for differences of belief in individual members, but when people advocate against the fundamental doctrines and try to create divisions within the Church, then they are likely to be disciplined. We know that there has been a real effort by leaders in the Church, for example, to discourage people from associating the FLDS group with our religion.

Here are some thoughts from the Church's PR department:

http://www.mormonnew...hurchs-identity

Despite its rapid growth and increasing social prominence, The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints remains obscure in many ways to many people. For example, in addition to erroneous associations with the FLDS, some people still confuse the Church with the Amish, the Unification Church and Scientology. In a world of multiple and multiplying religions, it is natural for a busy public to mistake one for another. However, this does not mean that such mistakes should continue to be perpetuated without being challenged. In fact, maintaining the integrity of the Church’s identity requires constant work and attention.

As part of this effort, Elder Lance B. Wickman, Church general counsel and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, has sent a letter to newspaper publishers and editorial staffs across the nation aiming to correct this confusion. This demonstrates the seriousness with which the Church views the situation. Above all, this is a matter of a church being able to define itself. All organizations, including religions, want to be defined by who they are as opposed to who they are not.

This is what Michael Otterson (managing director for public affairs for the LDS church) has also said:

http://www.mormonnew...ting-right-2012

Some polygamous groups use names similar to ours, as we have seen. Some describe themselves as fundamentalist Mormons. We can’t stop people from calling themselves whatever they want, but for the sake of clarity for your readers and viewers, we suggest that the term “Mormon” is not an appropriate adjective for members of these communities – as, in fact, the Associated Press style guide suggests.

Stereotypes are difficult to avoid, and by definition do now allow for historical context or different perspectives. By their use they demean the user as much as the subject.

So, my invitation is to:

· Engage us directly. Include us in your sources.

· While you obviously will have multiple sources, please allow us to define our own beliefs and practices

Frankly, I'm not interested in Jon Stewart's definition of what a "Mormon" is now or could be in the future. I'm more inclined to listen to the leaders of the Church and how they (and I, personally) define my religion.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Evangeline

[wayfarer]

@Bill,

While I laud your desire to create a coherent definition, i wonder if you have narrowed it too far.

I see the defining characteristic of a mormon as one having faith in and a testimony of god, Jesus Christ, joseph smith, the divinity of the book of mormon, and the living prophet. i do not see how literalism or historicity help the definition, particularly when some commonly held literal beliefs are not historically accurate or true.

Faith in a thing not true is not faith at all. truth is the gold standard of the gospel.

If i have had a manifest spritual experience about the divine nature of the book of mormon, why is literal belief in it’s historicity necessary for me to be called, “mormon”?

If I can accept that “Shema Ysrael, (Hashem) Eloheinu, (Hashem) ehad!” are the core words of the first and most important commandment, do I need to accept that Moses penned them with his own hand, or that they were Moses’ words, when they were most likely the result of pious fraud done much later?

I testify that the book of mormon is true to it’s mission of testifying of Christ, and that it is manifestedly the divine work of god, within it’s own acknowledged human limitations (see cover page).  I base none of my testimony on its historicity, and do not believe it is a historical work.  

Please confirm that this position makes me non-mormon by your definition.

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[Calm]

Do you believe that an angel delivered it to Joseph Smith presenting it as a historical text?

Do you believe in the literal history of the First Vision?

Edited August 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[wayfarer]

@calmoriah,

I have faith and accept that all revelation, including that which guided moses in the wilderness, is to the mind and heart of the recipient. please see D&C 8:1-3.

I have faith and accept that all processes in this world operate according to natural law, as explicitly stated in D&C 88:36-38.

I have faith and accept that no man can see god in the flesh and survive, but must be transfigured in some way to see god. Joseph Smith spoke of this as "Spiritual Eyes" (Moses 1:11).

Regarding the First Vision, Joseph indicates in his own testimony -- scripture -- that "he came to himself" after the vision (JSH v20). this means he was in some other state than "himself".

Regarding the Visit by Moroni, Joseph had this all-night experience in a crowded sleeping quarters, whilst awakening no one else. this is consistent with a lucid-dream based vision. a vision in dreams is no less divine than one purported to be in flesh.

I have faith in and a testimony of these visions happening, but i do not base my testimony on literalness, as that would clearly violate latter day scriptures as noted.

While I do not know whether or why the Book of Mormon was presented as a historical text, and I propose it is plausible that Joseph Smith legitimately thought it was history and that he was translating.

I propose that presenting the book of mormon as an historical text was divine will, as the people of the time, and even today, would not have taken the book seriously if it just were the revelation of a 'farm boy', who had already been convicted of scrying. The power of testimony in its historicity has driven people to take the book seriously, so I have no issue with the fact that it was presented as 'history'.

The question is whether people today can continue to take the book seriously with an understanding that its historicity is non-existent. I can, and it deepens my faith in god to know that truth is the ultimate goal of the gospel, and that we learn line-upon-line. I don't think this truth is easily accepted by the majority. That's why we need to include in our definition of "Mormon" those who struggle with the historicity yet testify of the divine nature of the book.

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[volgadon]

So much for the Middle Way if you can't accept something as both mystical AND literal/historical.

[Calm]

The power of testimony in its historicity has driven people to take the book seriously, so I have no issue with the fact that it was presented as 'history'.

So in your view a falsehood drives people to take the book seriously...and when they find out it is a falsehood, do you really believe that many will continue to accept it as inspired and not just reject the whole belief system as a falsehood.

[wayfarer]

So much for the Middle Way if you can't accept something as both mystical AND literal/historical.

Why does that invalidate the Middle Way? I can accept something as being mystical and historical, if it is indeed historical. Joseph Smith is a real person -- historically, he existed, and did a lot of good. I accept him as both mystical and historical.

Evidence points to the fact that native americans, who Joseph Smith believed were all lamanites, were in fact not descended from middle-eastern DNA, for the most part. Joseph Smith was wrong on that part of history.

Evidence points to the fact that Joseph Smith used his seerstone in a hat (see RSR) rather than looking at the plates and doing a 'translation'. This makes the Book of Mormon technically not a translation, but rather, a 'revelation', because the method is different. Faith in it as a literal translation does not correspond to the facts, therefore cannot be 'true' in the literal sense.

Does it make sense to believe something is historical when it is not? Yet we can continue to believe that the existence of the book of mormon is a divine event. I have no problem accepting both without cognitive dissonance. That, to me, is what makes faith faith. And faith in something 'not true' (the idea that all Native Americans are Lamanites) is not faith at all.

I wonder if we can share the joy of faith in the gospel without requiring that we be in full agreement on historical details?

So in your view a falsehood drives people to take the book seriously...and when they find out it is a falsehood, do you really believe that many will continue to accept it as inspired and not just reject the whole belief system as a falsehood.

To be clear, I proposed that as an idea -- it is one view among many. It could well be that Joseph revealed a history of an obscure meso-american civilization that is now completely diluted -- either way, we don't know, and we should be careful about speaking about things we don't know as if we know them. So, 'not my view' but one possibility.

But, I think you've hit on the most significant problem of all. Without proper education and understanding, most people go nuclear and negative on the church when their unrealistic expectations of perfection are burst. I spoke of this in my talk in Church last Sunday.

I believe that LDS often have unrealistic expectations of perfection in the church, its history, and its leaders. It has never been the case that the leaders of the church, throughout history, have gotten it right, and "pious fraud" has been part of scriptural history from the beginning. The fact is that the LDS church teaches the Plan of Salvation as being one not of flawlessness, but by learning through our own experience to distinguish good an evil. These latter words are not in scripture, but are to be had in the temple...twice. So if Lucifer's plan was the one of flawlessness, and God's plan the messy one where we would make mistakes, then what kind of things should we expect in the true church? flawlessness or messiness?

Our church history is messy. very, very messy. Beautifully, wonderfully messy. A work of god throughout, with men often asking for things and doing things that are and were wrong. It happens. But this is the work of god in all of his glory.

We could continue to obscure church history, to use polemics to shoot-down those who speak the truth of it. Or, we can embrace history and accurate reporting as the work of god. Using polemics and obfuscation worked fine for 170 years, because access to knowledge and facts of our history was either published by the church, or by anti's, and as such one could easily avoid the anti- literatur. But we are in a mormon moment. The internet is real, and the media is opening up the knowledge base in credible ways that mean that everyone will soon have access to the crap that's out there. To continue to obfuscate with polemics will no longer work.

We, who have both an understanding of the issues and maturity of faith to put things into perspective need to have the courage to face our history with faith. I know that isn't easy. I don't have the answer to how this is to be done. But the more we, who understand these issues, argue and obfuscate, the more the message of the moment will be stolen by those either with an agenda to destroy or the incapacity to handle the truth and have faith survive.

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[yootaw]

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

When asked, I generally say that I am a cultural Mormon. In my heart though, I am a Mormon.

How can something as intensely personal as whether or not I see myself a Mormon not be about me? You can call me whatever you'd like. Why do you feel the need to control what I call myself?

[wayfarer]

When asked, I generally say that I am a cultural Mormon. In my heart though, I am a Mormon.

How can something as intensely personal as whether or not I see myself a Mormon not be about me? You can call me whatever you'd like. Why do you feel the need to control what I call myself?

Then, my friend you are a mormon. It is part of your identity, and accurately stated as part of you.

In ancient china, there was a "school of names", that essentially argued that a 'white horse is not a horse', because the congruence between the terms was not absolute. Such needless argumentation does not always serve to get to truth, but may be useful for those trying to interpret grammars and the nature of ontology.

But it comes to a real sense of value: if you are a cultural mormon, you may not be an 'observant' mormon, or a 'true believing' mormon. Those who are observant and believing tend to resist the qualifier to the label, so in this case of this thread, it appears that those who observe, believe, and defend would like to stake claim to the label and trademark it somehow.

It's an interesting discussion. very revealing.

In the end (or beginning, as the case may be), the term Mormon was pejorative, refering to a sect that believed things differently than 'christians' who in their time were trying to protect their label as a trademark. To the original semantic, a 'mormon' was a polygamist who worshipped Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. And by using the label, christians could 'dismiss' mormonism as heresy. So, by that definition, the FLDS are more "mormon" than current LDS, because they fit the original definition of the label.

Let's put that into a pipe and smoke it... A non-starter for almost everyone.

So there are mormons...and there are [qualified] mormons. I'm not sure a declaration of creed (from the latin credo, "I believe") is a requirement for being mormon.

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[yootaw]

Thanks Wayfarer. I appreciate your perspective in this discussion.

[Analytics]

The term is already well defined: a Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What am I missing here?

[Atomic Punk]

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.

Agreed! And this has been one of my fundamental problems with those who have left the church, lost their faith, and/or become apostate and then demand that they still be considered Mormon. It's dishonest. If you've rejected some of the most basic tenents of Mormonism then at least be honest about it. Calling yourself a Mormon should mean something.