Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[mfbukowski]

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.

No, actually it's a rabbit.

I edited the post because I think a lot of people just saw what they saw and missed the point.

This picture appeared in a famous book by a philosopher named Wittgenstein - The Philosophical Investigations- and he speaks extensively about these questions about the meaning of words.

The entire point is that our experience of things is often ambiguous and that words fail to capture the experience fully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

Edited August 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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

Dang you anyway. I almost gave you a point for that, but NO points for you!

(Dang me I did anyway!)

[Tacenda]

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?

My name is on the records of the church and I hold a current TR, my bishop is aware of my difficulties in not believing as I once did, but hasn't said a word about it to me (it was through email). So I guess I can still call myself a mormon in good standing and I've always held a calling except for turning down the most recent one as a Primary Worker. I just didn't know if I could teach with my testimony the way it is. In fact that is the reason I told my bishop of my issues. I didn't want him to think it had anything to do with sinning.

[wayfarer]

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.

ah, William. John Dehlin is not your enemy. He is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't always agree with him, but I do understand where he's coming from. There are far more viscerally negative enemies in the DAMU (disaffected mormon underground)--John is trying to help.

You list the criteria from section 1.

Do the disaffected refuse to hear or heed? No. But they have heard things that are inconsistent with truth coming from the brethren. When General Authorities bring out the 14 fundamentals, requiring blind obedience to every utterance at general conference, it causes a lot of people to go absolutely nuts. And they should -- blind obedience is not part of the gospel -- that was Lucifer's plan.

Do the disaffected stray from the covenants? No. But when the integrity of the brethren is compromised, then the legitmacy of church rules becomes less important than personal integrity. There are many in the NOM category that live the Word of Wisdom in the same way that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith did -- and not how Heber J Grant set as policy (without additional revelation). They do this as rebellion, sure, but it's pretty benign -- and it's not a 'covenant' to live the word of wisdom as outlined by current church policy. Policy is not doctrine. Policy is not commandment. The real enemies -- the wolves in sheeps clothing, are those who preach and teach deviations from the law of chastity in the form of creative marriages, polygamy, and the like. These people are out there, they are not part of those in the Middle Way who wish to stay LDS. You have no idea how dangerous these people are -- and to conflate John Dehlin with these true wolves is not helpful.

Do the disaffected walk in their own way? Not if they choose to remain LDS. There are specific standards of compliance to commandment that we all recognize as being requirements to the church. While we truly embrace gays as our brothers and sisters, we recognize that to practice being gay through sexual relations is a violation of the Law of Chastity and will require leaving the church. There are a host of unimportant regulations that are typically forced on members: how do you interpret 'full tithe', what is the 'word of wisdom'. do I have to attend chuch all the time...etc. You may well want to condemn those who partially observe church regulation as being outside the membership, but last I checked, the WoW, church attendance, tithing compliance -- all are Temple Recommend questions and not subject to church discipline. They aren't breaking covenants thereby. They're just not motivated, and the words of the first section of the D&C should much better be applied to those who really do seek the destruction of the church from within and without.

John Dehlin is not your enemy. Joanna Brooks is not your enemy. and neither am I.

[zerinus]

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."

Absolutely not. Not sure what Church you go to, but the one I go to does not work that way.

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.

Again, not true. One can be a faithful member of the Church, without being a temple recommend holder.

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.

Hadn't heard of that, not sure where you got that from. That said, a bishop might interview a ward member for worthiness if he starts behaving suspiciously. Let's suppose that a Church member apostatized (as you suggest), and started subverting Church members in various ways, and was reported to the bishop. Then the bishop may indeed interview him for worthiness, and if found to have apostatized to take appropriate action to ensure that the Church is not harmed by apostasy--thus safeguarding the Church from the scenarios you have envisaged.

[wayfarer]

My name is on the records of the church and I hold a current TR, my bishop is aware of my difficulties in not believing as I once did, but hasn't said a word about it to me (it was through email). So I guess I can still call myself a mormon in good standing and I've always held a calling except for turning down the most recent one as a Primary Worker. I just didn't know if I could teach with my testimony the way it is. In fact that is the reason I told my bishop of my issues. I didn't want him to think it had anything to do with sinning.

Congratulations! You're a Mormon!

[mfbukowski]

The problem with the entire proposition that words have fixed meanings that remain unchanged forever is that it is a sectarian, actually Platonic notion. I would challenge any true believing member who believes that words are like that, to define what it means to say "I know the church is true" using all those words as they are classically defined.

I am myself a true believing member of the church- I use that phrase all the time, and I know fully what it means- every word, every nuance of meaning is what I have been examining for the 30 plus years of my membership. But essential to that understanding is the knowledge that meaning is found in context and is never fixed.

The meaning of any word in one context can differ markedly from its meaning in another context, and the idea that it is possible to define any word in one way for all contexts is, I think, just plain wrong.

But just for the record, in my opinion, John Dehlin is indeed a wolf in sheep's clothing and I do not identify myself with anything other than being a true believing Mormon. I can say without reservation that I know the church is true, and as I have said, I have thought about that phrase 30+ years in defining my understanding of it.

Edited August 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

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.

Thanks. I was thinking of statements like this. "In my understanding, god is not 'out there', separate, some puppet master or ideal that orchestrates what is happening here, to whom we pray for favors. God is "I am" - "in there":being itself as reflected inside of me: the Atman. Not the logical mind, not the passion, neti, neti." http://wayfaringfool.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-thoughts-on-redefining-god-of-my.html

[wayfarer]

The problem with the entire proposition that words have fixed meanings that remain unchanged forever is that it is a sectarian, actually Platonic notion. I would challenge any true believing member who believes that words are like that, to define what it means to say "I know the church is true" using all those words as they are classically defined.

I am myself a true believing member of the church- I use that phrase all the time, and I know fully what it means- every word, every nuance of meaning is what I have been examining for the 30 plus years of my membership. But essential to that understanding is the knowledge that meaning is found in context and is never fixed.

The meaning of any word in one context can differ markedly from its meaning in another context, and the idea that it is possible to define any word in one way for all contexts is, I think, just plain wrong.

But just for the record, in my opinion, John Dehlin is indeed a wolf in sheep's clothing and I do not identify myself with anything other than being a true believing Mormon. I can say without reservation that I know the church is true, and as I have said, I have thought about that phrase 30+ years in defining my understanding of it.

i love this post -- very insightful exploration of the blurry and evolving meaning of words.

does this definition of terms also extend to your use of 'wolf' and 'sheep's clothing'? if by saying wolf, and it's not a wolf you're identifying, at what time have we cheapened the word to no longer mean 'something out to do us harm'?

[CV75]

the phenomenology of the book trumps any claim or judgment of origin: it is divine.

***

Technically, his claims of translating a literal history when in fact another process was in place is called 'pious fraud'.

***

And that's why the book of mormon is exactly the same calibre of scripture as was Deuteronomy.

As you know, there is a very broad spectrum of what LDS believe on this point, with some perspectives more unique than others. I think the OP’s definition allows for this. At the same time, there is nothing backward or naïve about LDS taking the Book of Mormon and its witnesses at face value.

Are you saying that Jospeh Smith used a process other than "translating" (in a broad sense) a "history" (in a broad sense) by the "gift and power of God" (the essential, operative term)? With such broad terms used by a man 2 centuries ago, who seemingly wasn't given to much quibbling, it's difficult to say he didn't really mean what he said for the sake of perpetuating a God-certified pious fraud.

Personally, I have no need to pray about its “historicity”, or exactly how Joseph translated it, or whether Deuteronomy is a valid template for how it was done. It may be fun to think about and noodle over, but in light of my spiritual witness, I cannot conclude that the Book of Mormon or the testimonies of its witnesses might be products of pious fraud, even in the least pejorative sense, on Jesus’ or anyone else’s part.

I would like to see more discussion on actually improving the OP’s definition.

[zerinus]

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).

I thought TBM means "True Blue Mormon" Some people of course think that it means "Totally Brainwashed Mormon!" And of curse, it has a whole bunch of other meanings such as:

• Tactical Boyfriend Mention
  
• The Birthday Massacre (band)
  
• Three Blind Mice
  
• Tactical Ballistic Missile
  
• Total Body Modification
  
• The Best Music
  
• Time-Based Maintenance
  
• Transferable Belief Model
  
• Theater Battle Management
  
• The Beautiful Mistake (band)
  
• Tire Building Machine
  
• Teddy Bear Museum
  
• Team Based Management
  
• Tickets By Mail
  
• The Borg Matrix
  
• Terrestrial Biogeochemical Model
  
• Transport Bandwidth Manager
  
• Total Body Model
  
• Technical Baseline Measure
  
• Transceiver Baseband Module
  
• Training Baseline Material
  
• Tomato, Basil, Mozzarella
  
• This Broken Machine (band)
  
• Technology Based Marketing
  
• The Brooklyn Museum
  
• The Belgian Monk
  
• The Big Misunderstanding
  

Plus a few more, which I haven't bothered to mention.

Edited August 16, 2012 by zerinus

[Analytics]

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.

The church doesn't excommunicate people for being atheists. That doesn't mean that Mormons aren't clearly defined as being members of the church. It isn't nonsensical to point out atheist Mormons. It is merely ironic.

[Libs]

The problem with the entire proposition that words have fixed meanings that remain unchanged forever is that it is a sectarian, actually Platonic notion. I would challenge any true believing member who believes that words are like that, to define what it means to say "I know the church is true" using all those words as they are classically defined.

I am myself a true believing member of the church- I use that phrase all the time, and I know fully what it means- every word, every nuance of meaning is what I have been examining for the 30 plus years of my membership. But essential to that understanding is the knowledge that meaning is found in context and is never fixed.

The meaning of any word in one context can differ markedly from its meaning in another context, and the idea that it is possible to define any word in one way for all contexts is, I think, just plain wrong.

But just for the record, in my opinion, John Dehlin is indeed a wolf in sheep's clothing and I do not identify myself with anything other than being a true believing Mormon. I can say without reservation that I know the church is true, and as I have said, I have thought about that phrase 30+ years in defining my understanding of it.

I kind of suspected that this thread was about John Dehlin...and "others" (Joanna Brooks, perhaps). I, actually, agreed with everything you said, up until that last paragraph. It is almost impossible to nail down the exact meaning of any word or phrase, for every single member of the church. I, too, believe "the church is true", but I am quite sure my meaning won't be exactly what yours, and others, might be.

I do not believe John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", since he is very honest and upfront about his beliefs. I think it would be extremely difficult to identify an actual wolf in sheep's clothing, because they are going to appear as something they are not. IMO, such a person would try to appear very TBM, and would not be the least bit honest about their beliefs. May even lie for a Temple recommend, etc.

I don't think the membership need fear people who are open about their beliefs. Why? What is to fear?

[wayfarer]

Thanks. I was thinking of statements like this. "In my understanding, god is not 'out there', separate, some puppet master or ideal that orchestrates what is happening here, to whom we pray for favors. God is "I am" - "in there":being itself as reflected inside of me: the Atman. Not the logical mind, not the passion, neti, neti." http://wayfaringfool...-god-of-my.html

again, thanks for reading -- it makes a difference to be sure.

i think if you read my post which you quoted, above, it puts context on my blog post.

temple content removed

some time ago, during the height of the jesus-freak movement of the 70s, Bruce R McConkie wanted to shut-down a popular college professor at BYU, Glen Pace (my religion instructure), by telling BYU audience, with Pace sitting at the podium, that we do not pray or have a relationship with jesus christ. He said we only pray to god the father.

True.

.

temple content removed

So, now, we have three personages in the godhead: Elohim, Jehovah, and [holy ghost]. (some scriptures say michael, but let's not go there for right now. Elohim is the top of the hierarchy -- Jehovah, the head of the church -- holy ghost? My constant companion. Why should I seek for the god 'out there' when I have one right here inside of me?

I have experienced that spirit tangibly and in ways that go beyond anything I thought possible. the spirit within me is real -- it's not my conscious self, but something more like a constant companion. Nothing I am saying here is out of harmony with the gospel.

As for whether there is a god 'out there', I do not have the same witness. I have neither seen god, nor heard his voice, except through the spirit within that teaches my mind and heart. I 'know' the spirit exists within. I have faith but not knowledge at all that there is an out there. There is, by my spiritual understanding, no puppetmaster at the top of the hierarchy. does not exist. And you know? given the plan of salvation, there shouldn't be a puppetmaster out there.

Is your intent to label me here? Or are we communicating?

[wayfarer]

I would like to see more discussion on actually improving the OP’s definition.

I think there has been plenty of that -- the reason we got into the edge conditions, is to determine if someone not having literal belief can be considered a mormon. I have a spiritual witness, like you, but have no issues rejecting the word 'translation' because it was nothing like translating is -- this I know, because I do quite a bit of it from classical chinese glyphs, and looking at the text while translating is part of the process. but let's just leave that as 'agree to disagree'.

I sense the intent of defining the word 'mormon' is to define what it isn't, so as to nullify the 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I wonder if that is a legitimate intent or objective.

Perhaps it would be useful to take the known case example -- the one who is the archetype of the 'wolf' according to some, and see if the label fits. I will use X as a proxy for he who should not be named.

is X a member of the church? Yes. According to church definition, he is a mormon.

is X a believing mormon by the standard of a legitmate TR? Probably not. I don't suspect he would answer the questions in a way satisfactory for a TR.

Is X an apostate -- meaning, does he intend harm to the church? I would say NO. On the contrary, he wants to see more openness and what he considers honesty. This certainly is a controversial answer here on an apologetic board -- attempts to change the church do often fall into the category of apostasy -- but then, it's all a matter of opinion, until the priesthood makes a finding. Since we should not be steadying the Ark, then we should probably defer to the priesthood to make that judgment.

This is why calling X a wolf in sheep's clothing is inappropriate, not useful, and not helpful to the cause of unity. as long as no formal action is taken against X, he is a mormon, through and through. Let's not judge or steady the ark outside of the bounds of the priesthood who have the authority and responsibility to take action as the spirit directs them.

My preference is to leave "mormon" as "member of the church..."

If we need to qualify, then those who pass a temple recommend, including the belief questions, as 'observant mormons', and those who don't 'unobservant mormons'. I am an observant mormon, my beliefs may differ from yours, but we accept the core principles and work toward the establishment of the kingdom of god on the earth and the establishment of zion -- together.

[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?

Because it's not about you. It has never been about you. It's about what words mean.

Here is a parallel case for your consideration: Chang lives in western China. She has a cousin in San Francisco. She reads everything she can get her hands on about America. She loves America. She wants to be an American. She is a Chinese citizen who has never set foot anywhere out of China. Should the definition of "American" be made to suit her sentimental attachment to the word, or should it actually mean something objectively real?

Is sentimental attachment to be the new gold standard for lexical rigour?

Bill has raised the very legitimate question: Does the term "Mormon" have any intellectual content at all? Isn't it in fact part of the same lexical set as "Marxist" or "Buddhist" or "Democrat" or any other ideological identifier you could name?

Here's another parallel case: my friend George really wants to think of himself as a supporter of the All Blacks. It's just that, every time they play, he cheers for the other team. So, should everyone call him an All Blacks supporter just because he feels like he wants to be called that, or should we be honest instead?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

i love this post -- very insightful exploration of the blurry and evolving meaning of words.

does this definition of terms also extend to your use of 'wolf' and 'sheep's clothing'? if by saying wolf, and it's not a wolf you're identifying, at what time have we cheapened the word to no longer mean 'something out to do us harm'?

Thanks for your kind words, but far be it from me to fix definitions for any of those words. Clearly the man probably has wool suits but that is as far as one might take the expression literally.

To me his intentions are irrelevant. I think his influence far extends his ability to see the issues clearly- it is more that he is poorly informed on these issues and thus brings doubt to others by spreading what I consider to be uninformed views which are unsubstantiated theologically. He spreads poor theology perhaps unintentionally and by doing so, confuses people who in my opinion are theologically naive and easily confused.

I have a problem with that and don't see it as a good thing, call it what you will.

[wayfarer]

Thanks for your kind words, but far be it from me to fix definitions for any of those words. Clearly the man probably has wool suits but that is as far as one might take the expression literally.

To me his intentions are irrelevant. I think his influence far extends his ability to see the issues clearly- it is more that he is poorly informed on these issues and thus brings doubt to others by spreading what I consider to be uninformed views which are unsubstantiated theologically. He spreads poor theology perhaps unintentionally and by doing so, confuses people who in my opinion are theologically naive and easily confused.

I have a problem with that and don't see it as a good thing, call it what you will.

I agree with all you say here. there probably are details where we may differ with what you consider uninformed and I see as being compassionate, but that doesn't matter. His influence is larger than his understanding of the potential impact -- more care should be taken. I know him personally, and he's a bit in over his head right now.

But I think that by calling him a wolf in sheep's clothing, some are strengthening the wrong side of his message. Hubris necessarily creates nemesis - meaning that strong words create strong response. Instead, we need, dare I say it, a reasonable middle ground in which we can have a dialogue. I honestly think that dialogue needs to remain open, and polemical language stifles dialog.

That's why the nullification of people like John Dehlin by de-mormonizing them in this label debate does not serve to create a dialogue. We need caution and reason.

Your concern is dead-on.

[volgadon]

Is your intent to label me here?

All who know me will agree on my shocking habit of obessively and malignantly labelling anything and everything that moves, or doesn't. I'm unbelievably cruel, vicious, unyielding, with no desire to further dialogue or understanding. I will try to answer the rest of your post after I get back from a bookburning I'm orchestrating.

[Calm]

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!

I meant to give them away....in that case to you. Just for that, when they get reactivated, I'm NOT going to go back and give that post a point even if it was the best visual aid of the day. Edited August 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[wayfarer]

All who know me will agree on my shocking habit of obessively and malignantly labelling anything and everything that moves, or doesn't. I'm unbelievably cruel, vicious, unyielding, with no desire to further dialogue or understanding. I will try to answer the rest of your post after I get back from a bookburning I'm orchestrating.

Ah... A man after my own heart! A point for you... I look forward to your feedback. Seriously, thanks!

[Rich Hansen]

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.

Since you're looking for a definition, consider "Bloodhound Mormons". "Bloodhounds" are Mormons who believe they can sniff out the motives and judge the hearts of other Mormons, even if it is not their calling.

[yootaw]

Because it's not about you. It has never been about you. It's about what words mean.

OK. We are approaching this conversation from different angles and I can appreciate your point of view here. I don't think that we are really talking about what words mean though (more on that later).

Here is a parallel case for your consideration: Chang lives in western China. She has a cousin in San Francisco. She reads everything she can get her hands on about America. She loves America. She wants to be an American. She is a Chinese citizen who has never set foot anywhere out of China. Should the definition of "American" be made to suit her sentimental attachment to the word, or should it actually mean something objectively real?

I'm a bit confused by your example. It seems like the more appropriate question here would be if Chang could still be considered Chinese, although she has studied about, and loves what she's learned of America. Following this example, I am a mormon 'citizen'. I have been baptized and have spent all of my life immersed in mormon culture. I remain a member. It seems, that If I am following your example correctly, I should consider myself a mormon.

Bill has raised the very legitimate question: Does the term "Mormon" have any intellectual content at all? Isn't it in fact part of the same lexical set as "Marxist" or "Buddhist" or "Democrat" or any other ideological identifier you could name?

I do not think that the term has intellectual content. I think that it is a very general term that has a range of meanings that vary widely based on your frame of reference. It seems to me that what Bill is trying to do is create a very specific meaning of a very general term. I think that it would be better to add qualifiers to the general term to convey the meaning that Bill is shooting for. As it is, this excercise comes across more as an attempt to create a framework of exclusion in order to marginalize the voice of those that experience mormonism differently.

Edited August 16, 2012 by yootaw

[mfbukowski]

I meant to give them away....in that case to you. Just for that, when they get reactivated, I'm NOT going to go back and give that post a point even if it was the best visual aid of the day.

Yeah- and then you actually get another point for the above post! Cheesh! That gets an official Harrumph!

[Analytics]

Because it's not about you. It has never been about you. It's about what words mean.

Here is a parallel case for your consideration: Chang lives in western China. She has a cousin in San Francisco. She reads everything she can get her hands on about America. She loves America. She wants to be an American. She is a Chinese citizen who has never set foot anywhere out of China. Should the definition of "American" be made to suit her sentimental attachment to the word, or should it actually mean something objectively real?

Is sentimental attachment to be the new gold standard for lexical rigour?

Bill has raised the very legitimate question: Does the term "Mormon" have any intellectual content at all? Isn't it in fact part of the same lexical set as "Marxist" or "Buddhist" or "Democrat" or any other ideological identifier you could name?

Here's another parallel case: my friend George really wants to think of himself as a supporter of the All Blacks. It's just that, every time they play, he cheers for the other team. So, should everyone call him an All Blacks supporter just because he feels like he wants to be called that, or should we be honest instead?

Regards,

Pahoran

A better parallel case is somebody saying something like the following:

Let's define the word American, because the word really ought to have "intellectual context." I propose the following as the minimum requirements for somebody to consider themselves an American:

1- They must like hot dogs

2- They must have memorized all four verses of "Star Spangled Banner"

3- They must really believe America is "One Nation Under God"

4- They must believe baseball is the greatest game ever

If somebody doesn't meet those qualifications, then they aren't an American.

The problem with this, of course is that just as an "American" is a citizen of the United States, a "Mormon" is a member of the LDS Church. The word already has a well-accepted definition.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Analytics