Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[William Schryver]

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.

It is no coincidence, I believe, that the revelation given to Joseph Smith November 1, 1831 was designated to be the first section of the Doctrine & Covenants. That revelation foresees the nature of the apostates who would, both during the days of Joseph Smith, and in our day, seek to undermine the faith of the Saints and the progress of the Church:

D&C 1

12 Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh;

13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

Here are several things that are typical of the current crop of apostates who seek to call themselves "Mormons" and remain in the sheep fold in order to ravage the flock:

• They refuse to hear or heed the voice of the Lord as revealed through his servants, the prophets and apostles. The Lord makes it clear that, because of this, "they shall be cut off from among the people."
  
• They have strayed from the covenants they once made.
  
• "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god ..." This is particularly manifest among the Dehlinites, where they encourage former Saints to walk in their "own way." And yet the Lord makes it perfectly clear that those who so do shall "perish in Babylon."
  

Bill's intent, as I perceive it, is to awaken the Saints to the fact that there are wolves among us, or as Loyd Ericson has labeled them: "The Other." To the extent we harbor among us, without recognition of what they truly represent, those who "walk in [their] own way," we thereby encourage debilitating factions instead of fostering unity, which produces strength.

Edited August 15, 2012 by William Schryver

[Ahab]

It is no coincidence, I believe, that the revelation given to Joseph Smith November 1, 1831 was designated to be the first section of the Doctrine & Covenants. That revelation foresees the nature of the apostates who would, both during the days of Joseph Smith, and in our day, seek to undermine the faith of the Saints and the progress of the Church:

Here are several things that are typical of the current crop of apostates who seek to call themselves "Mormons" and remain in the sheep fold in order to ravage the flock:

• They refuse to hear or heed the voice of the Lord as revealed through his servants, the prophets and apostles. The Lord makes it clear that, because of this, "they shall be cut off from among the people."
  
• They have strayed from the covenants they once made.
  
• "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god ..." This is particularly manifest among the Dehlinites, where they encourage former Saints to walk in their "own way." And yet the Lord makes it perfectly clear that those who so do shall "perish in Babylon."
  

Bill's intent, as I perceive it, is to awaken the Saints to the fact that there are wolves among us, or as Loyd Ericson has labeled them: "The Other." To the extent we harbor among us, without recognition of what they truly represent, those who "walk in [their] own way," we thereby encourage debilitating factions instead of fostering unity, which produces strength.

So then it's a question of what we should do when we find "The Other" among us.

At least they're coming to our meetings, where we would want them to be if they were not members.

Who knows, we still may be able to help them, and if we can, it's just easier if they are already among us.

[wayfarer]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to read my posts and blog. I appreciate it.

You are entirely incorrect however. The power of god is not god, and the Middle Way is by no means god. In section 88 and prior to around 1835, Joseph Smith frequently spoke of god as an omnipresent spirit and that Jesus Christ was incarnate -- more trinitarian than his later representations. In section 88, Joseph speaks of the omnipresence of god's power, light, and even equates in several verses that he is in and through all things. This is as much of a working defintion of panentheism as anything, and thus, one could conceivably believe in panentheism and be consistent with some of joseph's teachings.

I do not agree with that concept however. God is not the same as god's power. god's power is what makes god god.

My faith -- that is hope, and agreement with the standard teaching -- is in God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We teach that the Father is an exalted Man as is the Son, and that is what I teach in a church setting. I hold to the concept and hope that the Lorenzo Snow couplet is true: "As man is, god once was, and as god is, man may become." As well, I see reason in the concept that eternal progression leads god to be advanced in that progression than man, but progresses nonetheless, in spite of Bruce R. McConkie's first of seven alleged heresies.

As well, when we read King Follett, there are a lot of possibiities as to what makes up god. Joseph and Brigham speculated in the extreme. I see no reason why we cannot speculate, probe, investigate, and realize that with respect to god's actual nature, we know very, very little.

What I would like you to consider is that the Middle Way is simply about truth-seeking and finding. This means that there are things we learn to be absolutely true: the book of mormon exists. It uplifts. It testifies of Christ. So, in the middle way, we acknowledge truth without apology. There are things that are false: for example, that the Book of Abraham represents a translation of the book of breathings scroll. We reject statements that are false. Between these two areas is a huge realm called 'faith'.

To be in the Middle Way is to have informed faith: that is, to accept things that we hope for, agree with, but recognize that we do not know to be true. I hope that God is my literal father of my spirit. I accept it. I have faith in it. But if I am truly honest and have integrity to any degree of epistemology, I have to acknowledge that I don't know it to be true. For each church claim, I can say almost exactly the same thing: I accept and hope for it and have faith. This means that I act on it trusting that it is true. But I'm rigorously honest to the epistemology here: i don't know it.

Bill stated in a response to my post on his blog that there is no verb in english for "I faith". therefore we typically say in the church "I know", when by any evidentiary process, we cannot say that. But it's ok -- I understand that we use the term liberally. It's a proclamation of faith.

I have talked a bit about god on my blog. And while I accept the correlated teachings of the church, I speculate as well, to find a solution to the impossible conundrum of god being once man and now god but does not progress. I have spent long hours meditating and having many spiritual experiences, but these mean nothing to others here.

Consider this: Jesus referred to those to whom the law came (Psalms 82) as "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high". He repeats this in John 10. As well, in John 17, he prays that we might be (not become) one with god as he is one with god. Theologians and early christian fathers all recognized that man can somehow become one with god and therefore gods in some way, but the dogmas of early christianity would not allow such thinking.

Joseph explored what this meant to become gods, and explored the nature of god. These are the mysteries of godliness. Yet he did not finish his work. Brigham Young speculated further including adam-god, elohim sex with Mary, all this stuff. We run and hide from these earlier speculations...why? Because they tend to confuse people and make us look something really strange in a christian context. So we don't talk about it. we don't teach it. we hide from it. That's fine, and probably prudent.

But it also means that we took a snapshot of the continuous speculation between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and decided to declare it as the standard definition of god: omnipotent, omniscient, ever-present, all benevolent, exalted man who once was mortal, yet never changes and has been the same from eternity to eternity. The internal, logical flaws with this definition of god are expansive. Why should we believe in such a being? Joseph and Brigham didn't. yet we lock it in and there you go.

But if you also start really probing into the idea of god the father being like we will be, then there is even talk of infinite regress of gods in the LDS corpus among JD and elsewhere. Infinite regress is a massive logical problem -- we cannot go there, because it simply blows the mind and makes our definition of god more incomprehensible than the athanasian creed.

So, coming back to earth a bit. I'm going to propose that we really don't know what the exact definition of god is. I know what we teach, and I dutifully and faithfully teach it. But as well, we are free to explore, to meditate, to understand with a more mature eye -- to seek for ourselves that which god reveals to us. Expressedly not for the purpose of teaching others, but rather, for our own understanding. I offer possibilities to consider:

1. "God" is a calling, like Bishop or Apostle, or Prophet. Think about it. We thank god for a prophet, and we recognize that there are certain keys to the calling of prophet. The role of prophet has never changed, but the person having the role does over time.

2. "God" is any being who, due to his or her harmony with the power of god, is unified with that power. This fits the psalms 82, john 10, and john 17 definitions.

and there are other possibilities.

But what happens, in time, is that all these are just speculations. And I can either believe or not, or more likely, suspend belief in any, while having faith that god is operative in my life, that I communicate with him directly, and that he influences me with his spirit. And you know? This I know to be a fact. I know that the spirit of god, the holy ghost, is present in me when I am in harmony with it. And this is doctrinally true. And if the spirit of a god is within me, and I am one with it, then are we not gods? Maybe not in the sense of permanently being THE GOD that's out there. but rather, the holy spirit, the member of the godhead, within. This makes sense to me. It is certainly not panentheism. It is consistent with scripture. It is not intended to be the 'whole god story'.

I hope this helps clarify. Again, this is my personal understanding. It is not what I teach in church, nor do I oppose any teachings of church -- we need a common, agreed-upon doctrine that everyone can absorb. But for us personally, we yearn for more, and in my humble testimony, as we ask in faith, god reveals more.

[Doctor Steuss]

Edit: Please disregard the below. I wrote this prior to seeing Doc Hamblin's comment: "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."

Doc Hamblin,

I might be taking your list/blog post out of context (I’ve been prone to a bit of emotionalism as of late, and it does tend to effect how I perceive things), but I am deeply disheartened that you believe that it is irrational when I claim to be a Mormon.

Mormonism is a very deep part of my identity. While I don't believe the items on your list, I still love attending church when a family member speaks, or a loved one's mission farewell or homecoming, or a niece or nephew's baptism. I am deeply honored when asked to bless the food at meals with my Mormon friends and family -- and it warms my heart that they don’t ask questions when I politely decline after searching my heart for a moment to see if on that particular day I believe that there is a G-d who will hear my prayer. I even like visiting with the home teachers (even if I have to listen to a piece from the Ensign at the end ).

What I’m trying to say (probably rather incoherently) is that to me, being a Mormon isn’t a set of beliefs. It is a deep cultural identity; one that I am both proud of and hope will always be a part of me. It is a longing for knowledge of the mysteries of life. It is a hunger for knowledge about the questions that may never have answers. It is desire to take someone’s hand when they reach out to shake yours, and instead of shaking their hand, drawing them in for a hug. It is desire to give of yourself so that you may reap the beautiful benefits of sacrificial service. It is a feeling of nostalgia each time you drive by a chapel you have attended at one point or another during your life.

To me, being a Mormon is one of the things I have to thank for a good amount of the redeeming qualities I have. I would no sooner separate myself from the privilege of being able to refer to myself as a Mormon (albeit, I usually make sure to add the qualifier of “non-believing”) than sacrifice my family heritage, as they are in many ways the same thing. They are who I am. I am a Mormon as much as I am an American.

I hope this makes at least a small amount of sense, and that it finds you in good health and spirits. My apologies if I've just made you read through the above, only to discover that I have misread/misunderstood you.

-Stu

Edited August 15, 2012 by Doctor Steuss

[zerinus]

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

I think that you are mistaken. In the Church we don't subject people to a routine or random inquisition into their state of belief. The temple recommend questions apply only to those who willingly submit to it by applying for a temple recommend. They have the choice of not applying, and those questions would not be asked. It is like the questions that people are asked before joining the Church, to ensure that worthy and ready to join. But once they have joined, we don't subject them to a routine inquisition to determine their state of belief.

[Libs]

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

The majority of Mormons don't hold a Temple recommend (or so I have heard?). Less than half, I think?

[Ahab]

Doc Hamblin,

I liked your post better when you called him Rabbi.

And hey Stu. Long time no see.

[William Schryver]

So then it's a question of what we should do when we find "The Other" among us.

You'll note that I advocated nothing more than recognizing "what they truly represent." If they desire to remain in our congregations (and, in fact, many do, for the precise reason that they know they are better positioned, from within, to evangelize their unfaith), then I am content to do no more than "recognize what they truly represent," and to make sure that others also recognize it. I am likewise content to permit the Lord to do whatever is necessary to cut them off "from among the people."

Bear in mind, this is nothing new. William and Wilson Law and their cohorts very deliberately exploited their positions within the Church in order to destroy Joseph Smith.

[Ahab]

The majority of Mormons don't hold a Temple recommend (or so I have heard?). Less than half, I think?

Yeah, well, some of us think that once they've taken care of their own ordinances and helped others for a while there's really no need to go back since there are others who still like to go there. (or so I have heard)

Anyway, let's not get sidetracked. Would all who are Mormons raise your hands, please?

If you don't want to be counted with us, don't bother.

[zerinus]

It is no coincidence, I believe, that the revelation given to Joseph Smith November 1, 1831 was designated to be the first section of the Doctrine & Covenants. That revelation foresees the nature of the apostates who would, both during the days of Joseph Smith, and in our day, seek to undermine the faith of the Saints and the progress of the Church:

Here are several things that are typical of the current crop of apostates who seek to call themselves "Mormons" and remain in the sheep fold in order to ravage the flock:

• They refuse to hear or heed the voice of the Lord as revealed through his servants, the prophets and apostles. The Lord makes it clear that, because of this, "they shall be cut off from among the people."
  
• They have strayed from the covenants they once made.
  
• "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god ..." This is particularly manifest among the Dehlinites, where they encourage former Saints to walk in their "own way." And yet the Lord makes it perfectly clear that those who so do shall "perish in Babylon."
  

Bill's intent, as I perceive it, is to awaken the Saints to the fact that there are wolves among us, or as Loyd Ericson has labeled them: "The Other." To the extent we harbor among us, without recognition of what they truly represent, those who "walk in [their] own way," we thereby encourage debilitating factions instead of fostering unity, which produces strength.

Two points here: Firstly, those words in that revelation was spoken of the unbelieving nations of the world, the Gentiles, not Church members. Secondly, those who apostatize from the Church rarely remain within it, but eventually leave or are exed; and while they do remain in the Church, the likelihood that they will be able to do much harm to it undetected is pretty slim. The structure of the Church, and the way it works and functions, would ensure that such a person would soon be detected before he could do serious harm, and appropriate action would be against him. But as long as he remains a card carrying member of the Church, he is a Mormon.

[Ahab]

You'll note that I advocated nothing more than recognizing "what they truly represent." If they desire to remain in our congregations (and, in fact, many do, for the precise reason that they know they are better positioned, from within, to evangelize their unfaith), then I am content to do no more than "recognize what they truly represent," and to make sure that others also recognize it. I am likewise content to permit the Lord to do whatever is necessary to cut them off "from among the people."

Bear in mind, this is nothing new. William and Wilson Law and their cohorts very deliberately exploited their positions within the Church in order to destroy Joseph Smith.

I notice you said you would want others to "recognize what they ("The Others") truly represent".

How do you go about doing that?

And how would you advise others to go about doing that if they felt as you do about wanting others to know others were "The Others" ?

Seems to me like it could lead to some very intense bickering, at least sometimes.

After all, who would have the final word on who "The Others" are?

I know lots of people who think they're doing some good by pointing out who they think some of "The Others" are.

I usually don't mind until I see a lot of bickering, and then I just try to advise a peaceful way to deal with others by bearing another person's burdens, and what not.

[William Schryver]

I think that you are mistaken. In the Church we don't subject people to a routine or random inquisition into their state of belief. The temple recommend questions apply only to those who willingly submit to it by applying for a temple recommend. They have the choice of not applying, and those questions would not be asked. It is like the questions that people are asked before joining the Church, to ensure that worthy and ready to join. But once they have joined, we don't subject them to a routine inquisition to determine their state of belief.

You are mistaken, my friend. You fail to recognize the simple fact that, unless one does "willingly submit" to this "inquisition" (your word, not mine) and answers affirmatively the important questions concerning their "state of belief," then they are necessarily categorized as falling outside the "household of faith." This does not mean they are not welcome among us, nor does it necessarily mean they fall into the category of the evangelizing apostate--the wolf among the sheep, but their failure to make their testimony known is, in and of itself, a declaration of unfaith.

Furthermore, no good bishop or branch president should permit a year to pass by without having an interview with each and every one of the members of his ward/branch, for the specific purpose of ascertaining his or her "state of belief." It is, in fact, his duty and responsibility to so do.

[Bill Hamblin]

Apparently the answer to my question is no.

But I still maintain that if an atheist can be called a Mormon, then the term is intellectually vacuous. The alternative is to insist that Mormon is a nonsense word.

[wayfarer]

Furthermore, no good bishop or branch president should permit a year to pass by without having an interview with each and every one of the members of his ward/branch, for the specific purpose of ascertaining his or her "state of belief." It is, in fact, his duty and responsibility to so do.

Respectfully, CFR. Never ever heard of this. Ever.

[Ahab]

You are mistaken, my friend. You fail to recognize the simple fact that, unless one does "willingly submit" to this "inquisition" (your word, not mine) and answers affirmatively the important questions concerning their "state of belief," then they are necessarily categorized as falling outside the "household of faith."

No. They can still be members in good standing who are worthy to take the Sacrament and maintain their priesthood duties. They just cna't go through the temple without a valid recommend.

This does not mean they are not welcome among us, nor does it necessarily mean they fall into the category of the evangelizing apostate--the wolf among the sheep, but their failure to make their testimony known is, in and of itself, a declaration of unfaith.

Lot of people who don't have a valid recommend still willingly bear their testimony, on some occasions. They're just not "asked" about their beliefs, or their faith, during the temple recommend process because they're not having those meetings. It doesn't mean they are bad members, though, and it also doesn't mean they don't have faith from God.

Furthermore, no good bishop or branch president should permit a year to pass by without having an interview with each and every one of the members of his ward/branch, for the specific purpose of ascertaining his or her "state of belief." It is, in fact, his duty and responsibility to so do.

You sound a lot like someone who would criticize a bishop or branch president who doesn't meet with every member of his ward or branch at least once in a year. Are you really sure you want to sound like someone who would criticize a bishop or branch president? Maybe you should just concern yourself with your own responsibilities.

[Calm]

I need more points!

[Calm]

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.

You must have read more than I did, but then I did get lost along the way.

[Ahab]

Apparently the answer to my question is no.

Some people would say no, but some would say yes. What to do when people do not agree.

But I still maintain that if an atheist can be called a Mormon, then the term is intellectually vacuous. The alternative is to insist that Mormon is a nonsense word.

You don't have to change what you consider a "Mormon" to be or believe. Just understand that everyone doesn't agree.

[Ahab]

I need more points!

I need to know if that was someone's idea of a duck instead of just a picture of a real duck.

It may look like a duck, to some people, but it isn't a duck.

[William Schryver]

Edit: Please disregard the below. I wrote this prior to seeing Doc Hamblin's comment: "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."

Doc Hamblin,

I might be taking your list/blog post out of context (I’ve been prone to a bit of emotionalism as of late, and it does tend to effect how I perceive things), but I am deeply disheartened that you believe that it is irrational when I claim to be a Mormon.

Mormonism is a very deep part of my identity. While I don't believe the items on your list, I still love attending church when a family member speaks, or a loved one's mission farewell or homecoming, or a niece or nephew's baptism. I am deeply honored when asked to bless the food at meals with my Mormon friends and family -- and it warms my heart that they don’t ask questions when I politely decline after searching my heart for a moment to see if on that particular day I believe that there is a G-d who will hear my prayer. I even like visiting with the home teachers (even if I have to listen to a piece from the Ensign at the end ).

What I’m trying to say (probably rather incoherently) is that to me, being a Mormon isn’t a set of beliefs. It is a deep cultural identity; one that I am both proud of and hope will always be a part of me. It is a longing for knowledge of the mysteries of life. It is a hunger for knowledge about the questions that may never have answers. It is desire to take someone’s hand when they reach out to shake yours, and instead of shaking their hand, drawing them in for a hug. It is desire to give of yourself so that you may reap the beautiful benefits of sacrificial service. It is a feeling of nostalgia each time you drive by a chapel you have attended at one point or another during your life.

To me, being a Mormon is one of the things I have to thank for a good amount of the redeeming qualities I have. I would no sooner separate myself from the privilege of being able to refer to myself as a Mormon (albeit, I usually make sure to add the qualifier of “non-believing”) than sacrifice my family heritage, as they are in many ways the same thing. They are who I am. I am a Mormon as much as I am an American.

I hope this makes at least a small amount of sense, and that it finds you in good health and spirits. My apologies if I've just made you read through the above, only to discover that I have misread/misunderstood you.

-Stu

I regret to hear that your "state of belief" has degraded from what it used to be. I sincerely hope that you may reestablish the lines of communication between you and your heavenly Father; that revelation may once again flow to your heart and mind from above; that your heart may be changed through faith on His name.

Edited August 15, 2012 by William Schryver

[Calm]

Apparently the answer to my question is no.

But I still maintain that if an atheist can be called a Mormon, then the term is intellectually vacuous. The alternative is to insist that Mormon is a nonsense word.

I vote for a new word for those who see themselves as Mormon, but not believers: "Mormonish"

[wayfarer]

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. )

I simply do not have enough of a processed view on this to speculate. On one hand, there are those who believe that god dictates his will with explicit words to mankind. This is possible. I heard a voice distinctively call me on a mission with some very specific words.

But even those words were 'to my mind and heart'. So, god persuades through the same mechanisms that we persuade ourselves. It's not a definitive, determinstic process, imo.

My interpretation of section 88 is that here in the telestial world, god operates through natural law -- entirely, completely. So...going to Joseph Smith's life, from 1820-1828, we see him involved in folk-magic, scrying, treasure hunting, doing things with seerstones and the like. This is not in our current worldview, but it certainly was for him. Having lived among some really primitive cultures in south america and india, people in the countrysides often have that worldview -- magic is real to them.

by whatever means Joseph translated the book of mormon, the image of this book and its contents emerged from his very fruitful spiritual mind -- and over 183 years of its being in existence, it has held up to scrutiny in terms of the norms and values, the testimony of Christ it contains. That is a testimony to its divinity. Yet we also know that there are things which emerge from the 19th century magical worldview in it -- skin color equating to righteousness or cursing for one, some of the anachronisms of the book, and even the idea that native americans somehow came from israel as lost tribes of a sort. This was in Ethan Smith's book available locally to Joseph Smith, and certainly fueled speculation in the area. (ref: BH Roberts "Studies on the Book of Mormon").

So, is it so much to believe that amidst the tableau of divine revelation, some of the stories and writings of 19th century thinkers might have found their way into the book?

Joseph may well have thought that it was all revelation, but yet he proclaims it as a result of his treasure seeking as an ancient text he discovered by angelic visitations... How much of it did he get spot on? How much of it did he confuse in his mind with other things? We will never know. we accept that it is divine, but i really question when some people claim that every word in it is divinely dictated -- that sounds like a fundamental christian to me and not a mature, believing mormon.

So to explain pious fraud -- somewhere in that mind, Joseph had to know that it wasn't exactly as he was claiming it to be. But he claimed it. The Lord allowed it to be claimed as it was. So it is...in a sense...pious, believing, completely well-intentioned fraud. and thank god it was done.

[Calm]

I need to know if that was someone's idea of a duck instead of just a picture of a real duck.

It may look like a duck, to some people, but it isn't a duck.

It is not a duck, it is a bunny; it is not a bunny, it is a duck.

[wayfarer]

I vote for a new word for those who see themselves as Mormon, but not believers: "Mormonish"

Since the word "Mormon" covers all those who are members or not, it appears that Bill and some of you want to distinguish the ones that truly believe according to the criteria in the OP, as opposed to the complete membership of the church. I believe there is already a term for that: True Believing Mormon" (TBM).

[mfbukowski]

I need more points!

No points for you! We have now instituted a tax on points for those who are too rich in points and you are one of the prime examples of point greed on this board! You should be ashamed for doing so well!