Can There Be An Intellectually Coherent Definition Of Mormon?

[CV75]

I think there has been plenty of that --

***

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

No, there’s been pointing out how it’s wrong and can be used to abuse. I really would like to see discussion about an improvement on the definition itself.

I agree that “a Mormon is a member of the LDS Church” is a fine and intellectually coherent definition for general, everyday good-faith / low-stakes conversation and interaction, but conveying that “I’m a Mormon” can also be abused in its own way.

It is well to decry abuse when evident, and the OP’s more detailed definition could serve that purpose in those conversations that warrant more clarification about where a claimant of “I am a Mormon” is actually coming from. Even when it is not used in this way, it is an intellectually coherent definition, and people if asked should oblige by honestly identifying themselves accordingly. If they feel proscribed, abused or discriminated against, they can in good faith end the conversation and have a more productive one elsewhere.

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.

It goes without saying that members in good faith work together to keep the covenants and build the kingdom. I think this is the basis of the OP's four-point definition.

[William Schryver]

John Dehlin is not your enemy.

I never suggested otherwise.

But, of course, what you really mean to say is: "John Dehlin is not your enemy, for there are none."

He is not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Sure he is. But what you really mean to say is: "He is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, for there are none."

I don't always agree with him, but I do understand where he's coming from.

I'm sure you do.

There are far more viscerally negative enemies in the DAMU (disaffected mormon underground) ...

I'm well aware of that. Several of them are my enemies, and some of them even admit it.

... --John is trying to help.

Of course he is. I've seen him help lots of people right out of the Church and into the DAMU, where a good many of them can be found kicking and screaming to this day.

(Part 1 - What's the deal with this new "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text" error?)

[William Schryver]

(Part 2)

Do the disaffected refuse to hear or heed?

Yes. It is, in fact, a distinguishing characteristic.

No. But they have heard things that are inconsistent with truth coming from the brethren.

So what you really mean to say is: "They only refuse to hear and heed those things coming from the brethren that are inconsistent with truth." I get that. I also get that this is precisely why the Lord said this:

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about, except that it bears startling resemblance to a DAMU talking point that has no basis in things as they really are.

And they should -- blind obedience is not part of the gospel -- that was Lucifer's plan.

Lucifer had no plan. He sought then and seeks now to thwart the plan of God. He seeks to persuade people that all obedience is blind.

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.

Yes, I've heard this sentiment expressed by many: "I didn't leave the Church; the Church left me." Or, "My personal integrity demands my alienation from a Church that no longer has any." This, to those for whom pride is the primary stumbling block, one of the more appealing DAMU talking points.

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).

Of course they do. It's as the Lord said: "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 ..."

There is nothing the rebellious love more than a dead prophet.

They do this as rebellion, sure ...

Of course they do. Hence the warning: "... the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed."

... but it's pretty benign ...

Sure it is. "... he will justify in committing a little sin ..."

... 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.

I never suggested it was. Nor do I believe God will condemn one for imbibing "mild drinks made from grain." It's the other things gonna getcha.

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.

I did not conflate John Dehlin with anyone. In any case, you are absolutely correct that there are wolves of many stripes and many colors.

There are a host of unimportant regulations that are typically forced on members ...

I have never felt my volition trammeled as a member of the Church.

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

I never suggested otherwise.

Edited August 16, 2012 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

... those words in that revelation was spoken of the unbelieving nations of the world, the Gentiles, not Church members.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken again, my friend. Here are the opening words of D&C 1:

"Hearken, O ye people of my church ..."

[William Schryver]

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.

The Lord calls them "shepherds":

For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

And, btw, it is my calling.

Edited August 16, 2012 by William Schryver

[volgadon]

The Lord calls them "shepherds":

And, btw, it is my calling.

There are shepherds, and there are bloodhounds. Somehow, and maybe it is just my skeptical old self, I doubt that you were extended a calling by judge Jeffreys to patrol the internet and flush out apostates.

[William Schryver]

There are shepherds, and there are bloodhounds. Somehow, and maybe it is just my skeptical old self, I doubt that you were extended a calling by judge Jeffreys to patrol the internet and flush out apostates.

You are correct. I was not extended a calling by "judge Jeffreys" (sic).

And call it what you will, the fact remains: I haven't been wrong yet.

And those who sympathize with apostates run the very real risk of becoming apostates themselves.

Edited August 16, 2012 by William Schryver

[Kemara]

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.

The problem with this, of course, is that there are millions of Americans who are not citizens of the United States of America, that do not and never have lived within, or even visited inside, the borders of the United States of America. Your sentimental definition, no matter how well accepted by the citizens of the United States of America, does not stand up to intellectual criticism. It would probably be a good idea to exercise a little more lexical rigour if pesky little things like accuracy (intellectual content) mean anything to you. Your post is hilariously ironic.....which reminds me, isn't there a song about Irony written and sung by a female American who was born in Ontario, Canada? Yes I believe there was and its lyrics include statements about there being rain on your wedding day, a free ride when you have already paid, and even more to the point for you Analytics, its the good adivce that you just didnt take.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Kemara

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

You're just being silly, of course.

Here is the oath of allegiance required by people seeking to become US citizens:

I hereby declare, on oath,

• that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
  
• that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
  
• that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
  
• that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;
  
• that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
  
• that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
  
• and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
  

Note the intellectual content of being a US citizen is allegiance to the US in place of foreign states, and support of the US Constitution. Note also the requirement of doing so "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Nothing about hotdogs or baseball.

So much for that nincompoopery.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Analytics]

You're just being silly, of course.

Here is the oath of allegiance required by people seeking to become US citizens:

...Note the intellectual content of being a US citizen is allegiance to the US in place of foreign states, and support of the US Constitution. Note also the requirement of doing so "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Nothing about hotdogs or baseball.

So much for that nincompoopery.

You totally failed to address the point. The point is that an "American" is a citizen of the United States. A "Mormon" is a member of the LDS Church. They are both well-defined terms. If clarity of language was your real motivation, you would embrace the well-understood, standard definitions. Since you reject the standard definition of the word "Mormon", your real motivation isn't clarity of language. So what is your real motivation here?

[Analytics]

The problem with this, of course, is that there are millions of Americans who are not citizens of the United States of America, that do not and never have lived within, or even visited inside, the borders of the United States of America. Your sentimental definition, no matter how well accepted by the citizens of the United States of America, does not stand up to intellectual criticism....

O brother. The standard way to refer to a citizen of the United States is an American. That is standard English.

If you insist that everybody from the Western Hemisphere is an American (I'm assuming that's your point--but what do you call citizens of the United States? United Statonians? I digress...), then in my example substitute Canadian for American and hockey for baseball.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Analytics

[Bill Hamblin]

You totally failed to address the point. The point is that an "American" is a citizen of the United States. A "Mormon" is a member of the LDS Church. They are both well-defined terms. If clarity of language was your real motivation, you would embrace the well-understood, standard definitions. Since you reject the standard definition of the word "Mormon", your real motivation isn't clarity of language. So what is your real motivation here?

Stop the pop psychologizing. My motivation is precisely what I said it is.

Yes, an American is a citizen of the United states. But that citizenship explicitly entails a loyalty to the constitution. There is the intellectual content to US citizenship: belief in the constitution as the supreme legal authority for US citizens. Do some citizens reject this? Of course. But that doesn't change the intellectual core of the idea of being American.

Just because some people reject the intellectual core of being an American citizen does not mean that there is no such intellectual core.

The same applies to being a Mormon.

[Analytics]

Stop the pop psychologizing. My motivation is precisely what I said it is.

Yes, an American is a citizen of the United states. But that citizenship explicitly entails a loyalty to the constitution. There is the intellectual content to US citizenship: belief in the constitution as the supreme legal authority for US citizens. Do some citizens reject this? Of course. But that doesn't change the intellectual core of the idea of being American.

Just because some people reject the intellectual core of being an American citizen does not mean that there is no such intellectual core.

The same applies to being a Mormon.

Intellectual core? If somebody asked the question, "Was Henry David Thoreau an American?" The answer is clear and without qualification: yes, he was an American because by birth he was a United States citizen. You wouldn't need to examine his philisophical views in order to determine whether he qualified as an American according to the "intellectual core" of the concept.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The problem with this, of course, is that there are millions of Americans who are not citizens of the United States of America, that do not and never have lived within, or even visited inside, the borders of the United States of America. Your sentimental definition, no matter how well accepted by the citizens of the United States of America, does not stand up to intellectual criticism. It would probably be a good idea to exercise a little more lexical rigour if pesky little things like accuracy (intellectual content) mean anything to you. Your post is hilariously ironic.....which reminds me, isn't there a song about Irony written and sung by a female American who was born in Ontario, Canada? Yes I believe there was and its lyrics include statements about there being rain on your wedding day, a free ride when you have already paid, and even more to the point for you Analytics, its the good adivce that you just didnt take.

This is an interesting point.

My wife always relates to her experience in Argentina. People would ask her all the time were she was from. She would say "America".

They would always retort back and say "I am from America too". To which a debate would ensue. Now it is true that the America's encompass much more than just the U.S.A.. How ever I am aware of no other country in the America's that is ever referred to by it's people as "America".

If some on in Uruguay (Who was born and raised and had never lived out side of Uruguay) said ,"I am an American". No one, any were, would think he was talking about Uruguay. They would instantly think the United States or at the very least they would look at the broad definition of an "American" as looking at the continents. IOW using "American" to identify Uruguay is something that is just not used.

Any way I was not even going to post a reply because this really doesn't matter. It just reminded me of my wife's experiences.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

O brother. The standard way to refer to a citizen of the United States is an American. That is standard English.

If you insist that everybody from the Western Hemisphere is an American (I'm assuming that's your point--but what do you call citizens of the United States? United Statonians? I digress...), then in my example substitute Canadian for American and hockey for baseball.

You know, I actually agree with you on this one.

[thesometimesaint]

Right of first choice.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right of first choice.

Huh?

[Ahab]

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

Heh, some people can see whatever they want to see in a picture, I guess.

It is not a bunny, or a duck, although it may make some people think of one, I guess.

[Ahab]

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.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking an American is a citizen of only the United States, though. America is divided into different regions of North, Central, and South America, so anyone who is a citizen of one of those regions is an American.

Kinda aggravates people who want to think American should apply to only citizens of the United States, huh.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ahab

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's not make the mistake of thinking an American is a citizen of only the United States, though. America is divided into different regions of North, Central, and South America, so anyone who is a citizen of one of those regions is an American.

Kinda aggravates people who want to think American should apply to only citizens of the United States, huh.

See my post. I am sorry but no other country in the America's refers to their country as America or as an American. I just think people are ignorant of the facts behind what citizens of the US say when they say "We are Americans".

[Ahab]

I agree that “a Mormon is a member of the LDS Church” is a fine and intellectually coherent definition for general, everyday good-faith / low-stakes conversation and interaction, but conveying that “I’m a Mormon” can also be abused in its own way.

Yeah, like someone who is not a member of the Church thinking they are a Mormon, too, even though some other Mormons do not like them using that term.

How about what we often call a Fundamentalist Mormon, who is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

Still a Mormon, although a Fundamentalist kind of Mormon, and they don't have to use the term "Fundamentalist" to define what kind of Mormon they are. They could just say they're a Mormon, and they would be right about that, just as an American doesn't have to be a citizen of the United States.

[thesometimesaint]

The US was the first independent country to claim to be Americans.

[Ahab]

See my post.

Heh, that was funny. You said you had never heard someone not from the United States refer to themselves as an American, and your wife had told you that she did. Listen to your wife, more, Mola. You have an excellent example of an American not from the United States living with you.

I am sorry but no other country in the America's refers to their country as America or as an American.

I'm talking about the American continent, which is divided into North, Central, and South America. America isn't a term that refers only to the United States, as some people seem to think. People from the United States are considered Americans, too, though.

I just think people are ignorant of the facts behind what citizens of the US say when they say "We are Americans".

No, some people know what they mean and just don't agree with their claim to have sole ownership of the term American. It actually refers to a lot of other people, too.

[Ahab]

The US was the first independent country to claim to be Americans.

So? Other people are also Americans whether or not they claim to be.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, like someone who is not a member of the Church thinking they are a Mormon, too, even though some other Mormons do not like them using that term.

How about what we often call a Fundamentalist Mormon, who is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

Still a Mormon, although a Fundamentalist kind of Mormon, and they don't have to use the term "Fundamentalist" to define what kind of Mormon they are. They could just say they're a Mormon, and they would be right about that, just as an American doesn't have to be a citizen of the United States.

They do to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. Ask 100 people whom they think of as Mormon. The answer 99% of the time it is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <1% are going to think of the Community of Christ. A tiny minority of that <1% is going to think of the FLDS.