Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[mfbukowski]

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

See now this is where things get dicey. What exactly does this mean? How does one show with certainty that God "actually" appeared to Joseph in the grove?

A vision is a spiritual event and I have a testimony that it happened. Is there a difference if God physically was present, or if he was in some other corner of the universe causing Joseph to have the vision?

Precisely which proposition must one believe to get the imprimatur?

Note of course that the very question presupposes that he is physical and WAS in a "place" somewhere so I am not questioning that. It's just that the temple recommend question is "Do you have faith in, and a testimony of, the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

The question is not "Did God physically appear to Joseph Smith in the sacred grove?"

It is very clear to me without a doubt that something happened there which was the cornerstone of the restoration, but what exactly it "was" is unknowable and to me, irrelevant.

I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is a historical document, but I don't think that it is necessary to believe that to be a "Mormon". One can have a spiritual testimony that it is a book of scripture to be used for it's intended use- as the word of God to his children, to be used as a guide for the way they live their lives, regardless of how it came to be.

I'm not picking a fight with you- I am responding to you because I know that you agree with me on this simply evidenced by your words I have quoted in my signature below. I know that indeed words are important, but you also know that you know that no matter what we do, words are always ambiguous and that describing anything is more art than science.

They are nothing more nor less than symbols.

[Ahab]

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.

To get even more basic, and to make a little more sense of the term, it might be helpful if everybody would at least agree that "Mormons" claim to believe in a God, including Jesus Christ. Like some Christians, they may not believe we really believe in them, but they should at least be able to acknowledge our claim to believe in them.

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.

That's illogical. The fact that a name doesn't necessarily imply anything, or that it could imply different things to different people, doesn't mean there is nothing whatsoever one needs to believe to be a Mormon. It just means different things to different people. It doesn't mean nothing.

The term, therefore, bares no cognitive meaning whatsoever. It is a nonsense word. It's like theistic-atheist, or capitalistic-Marxist, or Republican-Democrat.

Hey now, I'm a Republican-Democrat, too, as well as being a Mormon. I'm Republican on most moral issues, and Democrat on most economic issues. Some people prefer to call me an "Independent", but I like using the Republican or Democrat terms because most people can usually understand what I mean, even though they may not agree with me.

[Ahab]

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.

At the root all of those are still Mormons. The adjectives just tell you what kind of a Mormon they are, or think they are.

How about a lousy Mormon, or a very bad Mormon? I know I'd use those terms to describe some of us even if those Mormons wouldn't.

[Calm]

I'm not picking a fight with you- I am responding to you because I know that you agree with me on this simply evidenced by your words I have quoted in my signature below. I know that indeed words are important, but you also know that you know that no matter what we do, words are always ambiguous and that describing anything is more art than science.

They are nothing more nor less than symbols.

I agree and my question probably should have been stated more along the lines of do you believe in the First Vision as described by Joseph Smith.

I have been at a lost to understand wayfarer's position, he multiples words it seems without clarifying meaning. He talks about God but habitually uses lower case "god" while uppercase "Middle Way", a strange reversal of importance if the Middle Way is to lead to God it seems to me. I thought this might be an opportunity for some clarification.

[Lightbearer]

I offer my views here on my blog.

I say that you are dead on. These four are the absolute minimum, however I would suggest a fifth: That The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH! We may say that there are truths taught in other churches, and good people who try to live up to the light and knowledge they have, but we are the only church that holds the keys of salvation and exaltation in this despensation, the only one that has the oracles of God. That claim of authority for me defines me as a Mormon. I would also submit that the Articles of Faith are a good summation of what a faithful (see that qualifier) Mormon believes. If not, then in my opinion they are not a Saint (which is more important than the term Mormon). The problem with most who disagree with your list is that it reveals the tares among the wheat. What good is it to claim to be a Mormon if Christ does not claim you as one of His sheep. I think someone claiming to be a Mormon and an athiest at the same time is impossible. One cannot have faith and have no faith at one and the same time. "Cultural Mormonism" is a hollow appelation and in the eternal sense is meaningless.

[wayfarer]

I have been at a lost to understand wayfarer's position, he multiples words it seems without clarifying meaning. He talks about God but habitually uses lower case "god" while uppercase "Middle Way", a strange reversal of importance if the Middle Way is to lead to God it seems to me. I thought this might be an opportunity for some clarification.

then why don't you ask me a question -- I'm happy to answer or clarify.

as for capitalization, i seldom capitalize anything, including initial words and proper nouns. please don't impute anything thereby. I do make one exception, because 'middle way' without capitals, perhaps, has become sort of the way of mediocrity, whereas what I term "Middle Way" is a considered path of discipline, based upon the example of the savior (Savior if you will) who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I think I have been clear; but I do suggest that most of us as we come to websites, and this one is no exception, want to prelabel people as being either freinds or foes. When I have made it clear in my posts that I do not accept the book of mormon as literal history, then there has been a tendency here among the faithful to see me as 'foe', and I think it's not so simple, is it? I'm much closer to a friend than a foe, but because I don't use the same words then it's easy to dismiss me, correct?

One of the challenges in our faith community is something which cognitive scientist Piaget would call a "Schema": essentially a set of characteristics or 'knowledge' associated with a label or concept. Our collective Schema as mormons has all sorts of things that we expect faithful members to accept as true without question. Some of these things are true, but there are a host of things in our schema that are there because at some point, some general authority or prophet had an opinion. Or, in particular, a prophet may have said that either the story of Joseph Smith is exactly as he said it is, or it is the biggest fraud in history.

When thoughts like this enter our schema, we make conclusions that are not based upon the facts, but rather, whether something or somebody fits within our schema. If we use the absolute dualistic paradigm of 'all true or all false', then we affect our discriminatory paradigm so as to prevent accepting nuanced things as plausible.

Professionally, I am an ontologist. I deal with facts and evidence around the identity of people and whether they pose a threat to a nation. As I architected the current traveller screening system for the USA, I found that all knowledge we possess is actually associative assertions within our own schemas of knowledge. Once we associate a label with someone, "Mormon", "Arab", "Muslim", "terrorist", etc., we think we know more about someone, but we often know less. What I found is that schemata often lead us astray, thus we should apply a 'suspended judgment' to those things we really don't know for sure.

This conversation is entirely about ontology. Bill wants to have clarity as to what is a "mormon", and to assign a schema -- his four attributes of credo -- to assure that the label accurately applies. This means that if someone is a fully observant Latter Day Saint, pays tithes, magnifies calling, has a temple recommend, works in the temple, teaches within the paradigm of correlation, yet has a more nuanced belief about literalness of the history and the like, then that person is not a "mormon". And in rejecting the label, one can easily dismiss the entire schema associated with that label. This pattern of 'label and dismiss' does not serve truth, and is an ontologically flawed approach.

Likewise, you're trying to understand my position. you want to know if I'm a friend or foe. If you can label me, then you can dismiss me easily. I understand the paradigm -- it's what we do. But it's also not the Way.

Jesus taught that we should open up our paradigm, to love those who appear to be enemies, to pray for them, to treat them equally as if they were neighbors. And who knows? Maybe then we might find out that they aren't enemies after all.

If you try not to understand my position, but simply read what I'm saying without trying to categorize it into a predefined schema, we might find a middle ground where we can edify one another. This was the principle laid out in Section 50 of the doctrine and covenants. This is the principle Jesus laid out in Matthew 5:43-48. Finding that edifying middle ground where we can share faith and hope in the Way Jesus taught is precisely what the Middle Way is all about.

And if you have questions about my "position", please feel free to read my blog where I have openly shared my thoughts.

[mfbukowski]

I agree and my question probably should have been stated more along the lines of do you believe in the First Vision as described by Joseph Smith.

Yep.

And that applies to every truth of the gospel. For example- the earth's creation in 6 days. I believe that God organized the earth over a period of time. Was it six "days"?

Was it six "creative periods"?

Why six and not seven? Why six and not 14 periods or 6 billion?

But could he have done it in six literal days if he wanted to? Of course, I believe he could have if he wanted to, but I think that is not the way it "actually happened" whatever that means in this context since we can NEVER know either way.

For all we know he could have done it in six literal days but made it look as if he did it in 6 billion years so that we would have to walk by faith.

So what is the difference between believing that it "actually happened" a specified way and that "he could have done it that way but he didn't".?

Obviously at a certain point this slicing and dicing gets pretty crazy- it really doesn't matter one whit.

This is not directed to you Cal- but if anyone is interested in theories about the meanings of words- here is a great link:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/

I will just quote the table of contents for that entry to give all an idea of the scope of what we are attempting to discuss here:

1. Two kinds of theory of meaning

2. Semantic theories

2.1 Propositional semantic theories

2.1.1 The theory of reference

2.1.2 Theories of reference vs. semantic theories

2.1.3 The relationship between content and reference

2.1.4 Character and content, context and circumstance

2.1.5 Possible worlds semantics

2.1.6 Russellian propositions

2.1.7 Fregean propositions

2.2 Non-propositional theories

2.2.1 The Davidsonian program

2.2.2 Chomskyan internalist semantics

3. Foundational theories of meaning

3.1 Mentalist theories

3.1.1 The Gricean program

3.1.2 Meaning, belief, and convention

3.1.3 Mental representation-based theories

3.2 Non-mentalist theories

3.2.1 Causal origin

3.2.2 Truth-maximization and the principle of charity

3.2.3 Regularities in use

3.2.4 Social norms

Bibliography

Other Internet Resources

Related Entries

I think we are a little bit over our heads here in trying to figure out on this thread how words get their meanings and what meanings they "should" have.

[wayfarer]

I say that you are dead on. These four are the absolute minimum, however I would suggest a fifth: That The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH! We may say that there are truths taught in other churches, and good people who try to live up to the light and knowledge they have, but we are the only church that holds the keys of salvation and exaltation in this despensation, the only one that has the oracles of God. That claim of authority for me defines me as a Mormon. I would also submit that the Articles of Faith are a good summation of what a faithful (see that qualifier) Mormon believes. If not, then in my opinion they are not a Saint (which is more important than the term Mormon). The problem with most who disagree with your list is that it reveals the tares among the wheat. What good is it to claim to be a Mormon if Christ does not claim you as one of His sheep. I think someone claiming to be a Mormon and an athiest at the same time is impossible. One cannot have faith and have no faith at one and the same time. "Cultural Mormonism" is a hollow appelation and in the eternal sense is meaningless.

As I read your words, I see that since I do not accept the requirement to believe that the book of mormon is a literal history when there is prevailing evidence that it is not, but I still have faith that it is a divine work, that by your definition I am a tare? Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?

I wonder, as we begin to define "Mormon", if we haven't missed something here. Jesus said that the first two commandments are to love god with all your heart might mind and strength (literally the shema), and that the second is to love your neighbor (including all humanity) as yourself. As you construct your hardline schema of what constitutes a Mormon, may I ask you some priority questions?

What is more important? to love god, or to declare that you are in the one true church? to love your neighbor, or to proudly proclaim that you have all the rights, privileges, and ordinances checked off so that you can enter the celestial kingdom?

More to the point, I grant to you that for me, the LDS church is the only true church. But I have also travelled the world, living in India and China, and I have checked out the major religions in great detail; so for me, my conclusion of 'one true church' is at least informed by some research and knowledge. But even still, I have two reasons for adding 'for me' onto that statement:

1. I have not uncovered every rock and religion, and therefore if I parrot the statement "one true church" I cannot say that I know it. I do not yet have justified true belief to constitute knowledge.

2. It appears that the message of the gospel is not ordained for everyone in this life. For those of us fortunate to be born into the church, who have felt of its power and testimony, absolutely it is true for us. But I have had the chance to spend long periods of time living with people of other religions and cultures. their righteousness and spirituality in many cases is right there with mormons. I don't mean this trivially: I have been able to follow one of the most devout hindus as a friend and colleague for many years -- I have gone to his temple and to the innermost sanctums of hinduism. It does nothing for me at all. But, for him, it touches every possible button of spirituality. And to see his family and the love and kindness they have for each other -- truly a celestial home. I believe that they will be a celestial famlly once the ordinances are provided, but in this life, the church does not work for them. How can I say that the church is true for them? It isn't obviously.

Even saying "only true church" is a polemic that does not serve to open doors for us to share the gospel. We need to possess a more excellent way than polemics, we need to teach based upon love and love alone. If that means a conversion, fine. If it doesn't, then our church is not 'true' to them, and that's fine for now as well.

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[Lightbearer]

As I read your words, I see that since I do not accept the requirement to believe that the book of mormon is a literal history when there is prevailing evidence that it is not, but I still have faith that it is a divine work, that by your definition I am a tare? Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?

I wonder, as we begin to define "Mormon", if we haven't missed something here. Jesus said that the first two commandments are to log god with all your heart might mind and strength (literally the shema), and that the second is to love your neighbor (including all humanity) as yourself. As you construct your hardline schema of what constitutes a Mormon, may I ask you some priority questions?

What is more important? to love god, or to declare that you are in the one true church? to love your neighbor, or to proudly proclaim that you have all the rights, privileges, and ordinances checked off so that you can enter the celestial kingdom?

More to the point, I grant to you that for me, the LDS church is the only true church. But I have also travelled the world, living in India and China, and I have checked out the major religions in great detail; so for me, my conclusion of 'one true church' is at least informed by some research and knowledge. But even still, I have two reasons for adding 'for me' onto that statement:

1. I have not uncovered every rock and religion, and therefore if I parrot the statement "one true church" I cannot say that I know it. I do not yet have justified true belief to constitute knowledge.

2. It appears that the message of the gospel is not ordained for everyone in this life. For those of us fortunate to be born into the church, who have felt of its power and testimony, absolutely it is true for us. But I have had the chance to spend long periods of time living with people of other religions and cultures. their righteousness and spirituality in many cases is right there with mormons. I don't mean this trivially: I have been able to follow one of the most devout hindus as a friend and colleague for many years -- I have gone to his temple and to the innermost sanctums of hinduism. It does nothing for me at all. But, for him, it touches every possible button of spirituality. And to see his family and the love and kindness they have for each other -- truly a celestial home. I believe that they will be a celestial famlly once the ordinances are provided, but in this life, the church does not work for them. How can I say that the church is true for them? It isn't obviously.

Even saying "only true church" is a polemic that does not serve to open doors for us to share the gospel. We need to possess a more excellent way than polemics, we need to teach based upon love and love alone. If that means a conversion, fine. If it doesn't, then our church is not 'true' to them, and that's fine for now as well.

You have an odd belief. As to answer if you are a "tare" that is not for me to judge. As for loving God and loving one's neighbor, is it loving my neighbor and God to deny what He has proclaimed in these last days? Yes the word of God does divide us asunder. If we reject the fullness of the restored Gospel then we reject God and if we hinder one from seeking the Gospel and making them feel as if whatever they choose all roads lead to heaven, then we are not loving our neighbor either. If we water down the Gospel to include all other faiths as being correct, then we are also being dishonest. We do not have to be unkind, but we cannot accept false doctrine or false christs for the sake of "love" or "brotherhood" either. This work is not the work of men but the work of God. We can declare it boldly without being overbearing.

[thesometimesaint]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are pretty good it is a duck. Even if it hangs around with the chickens.

[CV75]

Bill wants to have clarity as to what is a "mormon", and to assign a schema -- his four attributes of credo -- to assure that the label accurately applies. This means that if someone is a fully observant Latter Day Saint, pays tithes, magnifies calling, has a temple recommend, works in the temple, teaches within the paradigm of correlation, yet has a more nuanced belief about literalness of the history and the like, then that person is not a "mormon".

When the Lord says in D&C 1 that this is the “only true and living Church,” adding that He is “well pleased” with it “collectively and not individually,” He is saying that collectively it holds His authority (verses 6, 22), His ordinances and everlasting covenant (verse 15); His commandments (verse 17, 24); the fullness of His gospel (verse 23); and the Book of Mormon (verse 29). I think he is also saying here that individually, some Church members do good things with these objects of faith, and some do not.

His being “well pleased” with the LDS Church does not mean He is not somewhat pleased with some alternatives to the extent they are inspired by the light of truth.

Those with the opportunity may allow themselves to be drawn into the Lord’s vision (the “collective” aspect) or hang onto their own vision (the “individual” aspect). Of course, everyone exhibits something of both, but in either case, anyone who acts with authentic faith in God, Christ, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the living prophet eventually cannot go wrong with regards to where these lead him. Those currently without the opportunity to do so will someday, somehow get it.

If the sticking point is the historicity (a broad term—it is enough that it exists) of the Book of Mormon, the linked blog does qualify the Joseph Smith idea with the parenthetical “To me this implies…” about those who charge him with delusion or fraud with respect to it. The historicity is obviously meant to be understood in terms of its being inspired and translated by the power of God and witnessed of in all honesty (the three and eight witnesses providing reasonably explicit references to its historicity, again, a broad term).

I think the kined definition qualifies as being intellectually coherent. Of course one may not agree and offer an alternative.

[wayfarer]

If the sticking point is the historicity (a broad term—it is enough that it exists) of the Book of Mormon, the linked blog does qualify the Joseph Smith idea with the parenthetical “To me this implies…” about those who charge him with delusion or fraud with respect to it. The historicity is obviously meant to be understood in terms of its being inspired and translated by the power of God and witnessed of in all honesty (the three and eight witnesses providing reasonably explicit references to its historicity, again, a broad term).

This is a brilliant way to put it. the book of mormon exists! it testifies of Christ! the phenomenology of the book trumps any claim or judgment of origin: it is divine.

It is clear that he had a different understanding of 'translation' than we would affix to it. Not important. From what I can tell, a judgment of outright fraud is unwarranted, and a judgment of delusion is not correct: inspiration and spiritual experience to those not spiritually minded always appears like delusion.

Technically, his claims of translating a literal history when in fact another process was in place is called 'pious fraud'. This isn't intended to be a pejorative, although I would think that most LDS cannot understand the terms technical meaning. When Josiah 'discovered' the Deuteronomy scroll in the temple in 625 BCE, he 'claimed' it was written by Moses. It certainly is divine scripture, having the most important doctrine of the old testament, yet it wasn't literally written by moses -- it was written by one of Josiah's scribes, and given the divine nature -- is revelation.

That's why it's important to understand that all revelation is given to the mind and heart, as noted in D&C 8:1-3. And that's why the book of mormon is exactly the same calibre of scripture as was Deuteronomy.

[Analytics]

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

You are attempting to hijack a word that refers to the church membership. According to the Church's official style guide,

When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable.

A Mormon is a member of the Church. That's why Lib was exactly correct when he said, "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." The word Mormon has already be defined. By stating that members with certain characteristics shouldn't be called Mormon, you are stating that those people should have their membership revoked.

[wayfarer]

You have an odd belief. As to answer if you are a "tare" that is not for me to judge.

...

If we water down the Gospel to include all other faiths as being correct, then we are also being dishonest. We do not have to be unkind, but we cannot accept false doctrine or false christs for the sake of "love" or "brotherhood" either. This work is not the work of men but the work of God. We can declare it boldly without being overbearing.

As for whether it is for you to judge or not, we all do it. You did it in saying that I have an odd belief.

One of the gloriously overlooked aspects of joseph smith's method of learning was his openness to finding truth wherever it may come from. In so doing, there is no watering down, but rather, an enhanced understanding of truth. The Gospel, is simply "all truth". If you have gone through the temple, you know that all truth is contained by the gospel. Thus, when we look at the church, do we currently possess 'all truth'? hardly. When we look at other religions, are they 'all false'? hardly. But for us there is a material difference both in core doctrine and authority. No other christian religion teaches and preaches the Plan of Salvation including the premortal existence. No other christian religion has the same understanding of God, nor the processes of deification. These are unique. As for 'priesthood', the evidence for a priesthood is rampant in the early church, and has been continued down in corrupted form by the Catholic church. Hence, either the Catholics have priesthood, or we do, and we testify that we have it, and that there was an apostacy. These things are core.

Yet as we learn faith, we also need to understand that there is much for us to learn and grow from. By simply saying we have it and no-one else has 'it', then we deny the effectiveness of god to teach us through the same processes Joseph Smith used to learn and grow in light and knowledge. The endowment comes from Joseph Smith's foray into Freemasonry. He found in it an essential revelation the divine, added to it, yet included some very human aspects of the Masonic ritual into the endowment. Over time, some of those masonic aspects have been eliminated, leaving the more pure essence of the endowment. If Joseph wasn't willing to be inspired by that which came from outside, we might not have had the endowment. It's the process the Lord used to teach him.

I'm suggesting that the claim of "One True Church" is a polemic (fightin' words) and this is fraught with problems. You and I may agree to it, but it doesn't help the work. I was a ward mission leader for several years. We had amazing results, and I never once testified that we have the 'one true church'. we testified that this is Jesus's church, that he is at the helm of it, that we have a living prophet... When someone is touched by the spirit, polemics are entirely unnecessary. The superiority of the church is manifest through the spirit, and not the words we use. Words like "one true church" can get in the way, turning people off -- and we actually don't believe it either. If we turn to 2 Ne 29:11-13:

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

notice two things here: (1) that people are judged according to their books, and (2) that the books will become one. I have lived in India and China. I can guarantee that their books do not start with the Bible, as is in the west. Yet, after learning ancient chinese and sanskrit, I have found quotes from LDS scripture in the texts of the ancient religions of these two great countries. God revealed his will to them through their sacred texts. Yes, they've been corrupted, just like the bible, but at the core, they have their revealed words, and the best of their cultures live up to them. In these texts are teachngs that can help us -- I have opened my mind to the revealed truths of these ancient texts, and they enhance my understanding of the gospel, without taking one whit away from my LDS-based beliefs. It's called further light and knowedge.

As I taught a woman who came from China, she asked, why is it that none of the chinese texts are part of the church? I told her it's because we haven't yet discovered the truth therein. I then went to a specific text that had these words: "Health in the navel, Marrow in the bones" in a scripture attributed to Lao tzu, and showed her how this is in parallel to the scriptures in the D&C and Bible.

When we open our minds beyond the lock-down definitions we're attempting here, a world of wonder is available to us.

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

You are attempting to hijack a word that refers to the church membership. According to the Church's official style guide,

When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable.

A Mormon is a member of the Church. That's why Lib was exactly correct when he said, "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." The word Mormon has already be defined. By stating that members with certain characteristics shouldn't be called Mormon, you are stating that those people should have their membership revoked.

Amen and amen!

[Calm]

Technically, his claims of translating a literal history when in fact another process was in place is called 'pious fraud'. This isn't intended to be a pejorative, although I would think that most LDS cannot understand the terms technical meaning.

So you would define "pious fraud" as "lying with intent to do good" or perhaps "inspired deception"? And if the latter is an accurate definition, do you believe that God instructed/inspired Joseph to knowingly practice the deception or that Joseph believe that his dreams were physical realities and that the plates were had physical form as well as spiritual and his writings were actual translations of an ancient text due to God inspiring him to believe this? Or something else?

The latter scenario would be something along discussing whether God creating the world so it appears to be ancient in the sense of having existed for eons when it has only existed for us for thousands of years. (mfb, I am trying hard to say things without assumptions that I don't believe in, but it is hard to do so when certain topics have usually been discussed with these assumptions in place so habits have been established...I know that it makes no practical difference to us if God created the world yesterday or eons ago or it wasn't created by God at all if our awareness of the earth is the same for all cases, but just let me be lazy today please. )

Edited August 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[William Schryver]

In the Church today we don't inquire into people's beliefs ...

This is simply not true. A simple reading of a few of the temple recommend questions demonstrates as much:

• Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
  
• Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
  
• Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
  
• Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
  
• Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
  

[Tacenda]

Right now in my faith journey I believe Joseph Smith was inspired to author the Book of Mormon, partly through revelation and partly by what he read from other sources. I believe he took alot of what Swedenborgianism teaches and Freemasonry teaches and put them into the church. I believe he found other faith systems to be lacking in certain elements and felt inspired to restore those elements.

So in a way he did restore things from the bible and by revelatory means and created the church to emcompass more than the churches that surrounded him. He even joined the Methodist church after the "First Vision" where he was told not to join any other churches. I believe he needed to see what the structure of the Methodist church was in order to start the church.

[mfbukowski]

Why does the name "Grasshopper" keep flashing through my mind??

[Ahab]

Why does the name "Grasshopper" keep flashing through my mind??

I don't know. Do you see dragons imprinted on somebody's forearms?

[wayfarer]

This is simply not true. A simple reading of a few of the temple recommend questions demonstrates as much:

Your point is well taken -- the TR asks questions where beliefs need to be in some form in order to answer the questions correctly. However, the questions do not inquire as to what the beliefs are, nor does it actually use the term 'beliefs'.

Let me say, without equivocation, that honesty in answering the questions requires faith, a testimony, and the sustaining of the leadership of the church at all levels. Lying or equivocating is entirely unacceptable, in my humble opinion.

A the same time, the nature of one's faith and testimony is not asked. Is the faith large or small? not asked. Is the testimony a firm unshakable knowledge or is it tentative -- not asked. And as we all have gifts and understanding differently, yet make up one church, it is appropriate that there be differences in the intensity and nature of our beliefs, as befitting our individual experience and knowledge of the gospel, and the depth and maturity of our faith.

To the original post, the defintion of 'mormon' I would have to conclude is as in the official style guide: "When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable". therefore, it seems quite clear that the church's definition of "Mormon" is "Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". This defintion is simple, clear, and unambiguous.

[wayfarer]

Right now in my faith journey I believe Joseph Smith was inspired to author the Book of Mormon, partly through revelation and partly by what he read from other sources. I believe he took alot of what Swedenborgianism teaches and Freemasonry teaches and put them into the church. I believe he found other faith systems to be lacking in certain elements and felt inspired to restore those elements.

So in a way he did restore things from the bible and by revelatory means and created the church to emcompass more than the churches that surrounded him. He even joined the Methodist church after the "First Vision" where he was told not to join any other churches. I believe he needed to see what the structure of the Methodist church was in order to start the church.

So three questions:

1. Are you a member of record of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

2. Do you consider yourself a "Mormon", without any word in qualification before the word?

3. If you consider yourself a "Mormon", do you consider yourself, as in the blog behind the original post, "Irrational" in making that claim?

[mfbukowski]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are pretty good it is a duck. Even if it hangs around with the chickens.

Edit: But what if it looks like a duck but is actually a rabbit?

Edited August 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

To the original post, the defintion of 'mormon' I would have to conclude is as in the official style guide: "When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable". therefore, it seems quite clear that the church's definition of "Mormon" is "Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". This defintion is simple, clear, and unambiguous.

How about someone who is an apostate Mormon but still a member of the Church? Still a Mormon, by your definition, and I think by mine too. Just not a good Mormon. A very bad Mormon, indeed.

[volgadon]

I agree and my question probably should have been stated more along the lines of do you believe in the First Vision as described by Joseph Smith.

I have been at a lost to understand wayfarer's position, he multiples words it seems without clarifying meaning. He talks about God but habitually uses lower case "god" while uppercase "Middle Way", a strange reversal of importance if the Middle Way is to lead to God it seems to me. I thought this might be an opportunity for some clarification.

Wayfarer may correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I got from his blog and posts here is that he espouses a sort of panentheism, in which God is the Middle Way.