Is There Really More Than One Way to Mormon?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

No, I don't think the kind of understanding you reference here is possible. Personally, I believe any sort of effort is doomed from the beginning if one party or another claims to be in possession of the "facts."

Yes, don't show up to school us, Fearless.  I have my issues and struggles right now but I've learned a lot from the members here.  You see both sides and some really good and mostly respectful discussions.  Lots of great sources given too (both sides).  I ask a lot of questions, and there are many here who are patient and provide answers.

Edited September 27, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Hey all,  ExMormon here.

Did any of you attend Sunstone this year?  The theme was 'More Than One Way To Mormon'.

I did not know what to expect as it was my first time attending.  I was blown away at how much love and respect there was there.

Now, I realize that maybe the active Mormons there were probably not representative of most Mormons....they are much more  liberal and open minded, but I had active members come up and challenge me after my two talks, so it was not all about being exmormon or antagonistic towards the church.

The reason the event worked was because there was a pure empathy towards each person.  No matter what someones status was in the church, everyone was validated and respected.

I often wonder if there needs to be an exmormon community and a mormon community...and a whole spectrum of communities in between.

Can't we all just be Mormons?  I know I want that.

It requires us all to validate each other's opinions. 

We don't have to agree.  We don't have to say the other person is right....

But we have to accept that a person is justified, for example, in being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back.  Conversely, people are free to believe he was doing god's bidding in bringing about the eternal principle of polygamy....the point being that neither position makes the individual a bad or evil person.

While acknowledging that many exmormon have not made it easy to reach this level of understanding, it is important to acknowledge that mormons have been returning the favor.

Can we ever get there?  Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?  Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

I hope we can and, despite what people might think of me based of what they have read online, I always trying to achieve this dual respect in my real life relationships with active mormons (with varying degrees of success).

"being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back" - Ewwww, that;s DISGUSTING!!!! Oh, you were using a figure of speech. Hehe, my bad. But, in that case, you cannot possibly demonstrate that he had sex with "tons of women". That he did not inform Emma of his polygamy at first and possibly had sex with another woman is probably true. I have no problem with him having sex with any of his polygamous wives (the young ones do not seem to have had imtimate relations with him so far as I know) but I do wish he had told Emma straight up. Perhaps the time was not right according to God's judgment but I really do not know.  I agree being repulsed by that action does not make one inherently evil. But, I think people are missing the mark in when describing Joseph Smith as some sort of sex perv or maniac. He too was repulsed by the idea of polygamy as was all the original brethren he introduced the idea to. It does boil to whether or not hew was a a true prophet of God, polygamy and all and I give a firm yes to that question.

I've no problem Mormons and exMormons dialoguing. it can be fun.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, blueglass said:

Would Joseph call his wife Emma, mother, and children apostates or committing a sin?   Ronald K. Esplin agrees that there are some problems and missing pieces from the council of fifty minutes associated with the succession crisis.

That's actually a good question. I don't know about Joseph's mother but as for the rest, strictly, speaking, they are all apostates; thought I would not dare criticize any of them for it. First, they all made huge sacrifices for the restoration of the gospel, especially Emma. Second, if anything, I don't think Joseph will be too pleased to see you, nor us him, at the other side of the veil after criticizing them for leaving the Church. Third, well, then there will be God to deal with. YIKES!!!

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Fearless, you're Ryan McNight, right?  The Mormon Leaks guy?  The same guy who's doing an expressly anti-Mormon podcast in Spanish?  Bro, you are all over the internet stating in no uncertain terms, proudly, that your goal is to do as much damage to the church and drive as many people out of it as possible.  Very few who get branded with the "anti" label deserve it, but you are one of them.  And I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's a simple statement of fact.  In the context of who you are, this OP is bizarre.

As for the word "Mormon," I'd be happy to grant LDS Inc. exclusive rights if they were to simultaneously reject the "Christian" label, an argument protestants and catholics have been making for quite some time.  Having grown up in the south witnessing the church fight a never-ending battle/pity party to be included under the Christian umbrella I find it peak hypocrisy to discriminate against groups who would identify as Mormon.

Pity party? You make it sound like we went to the big mean churches with "Please sir, can I have some more?" instead of just claiming the (correct) descriptor and moving on.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Fearless, you're Ryan McNight, right?  The Mormon Leaks guy?  The same guy who's doing an expressly anti-Mormon podcast in Spanish?  Bro, you are all over the internet stating in no uncertain terms, proudly, that your goal is to do as much damage to the church and drive as many people out of it as possible.  Very few who get branded with the "anti" label deserve it, but you are one of them.  And I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's a simple statement of fact.  In the context of who you are, this OP is bizarre.

BAM!!!

[Darren10]

I can't find the Spanish podcasts and it's totally sleep time for me right now. But I did find the official podcast site, I think, and found this:

Quote

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. He is a former National Board Certified high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago, where he taught for seven years.

Jessica Bluemke is a contributor to Friendly Atheist and a graduate of Ball State University. She lives on the north side of Chicago and performs stand-up comedy in her free time.

Dude, you gotta be tough to teach Chicago's schools and getting nationally certified ain't easy neither. Chicago also has some really funny standup places. Good strong crew Fixxer's got there.   

[Maidservant]

11 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Bad ideas and actions deserve to be mocked and insulted.

Not just in the Mormon/non-Mormon context, but our entire world, there is NOTHING I fear and disrespect more than the willingness of many human beings to mock.  I fear it.  I feel nauseated about it.  It's hard enough to be human, stumbling along and screwing up, without having to hazard being mocked because someone decided I deserved it.

By the way, you might really like the talk Pres. Uchtdorf just gave on Saturday at the Women's Session.  He spent a long time talking about loving enemies and about how we should never denigrate or silence those who disagree or even oppose us (again, I don't think he was specifically talking non-Mormons, but any group we personally deem that).  So, yea, we (Mormons) were called to repentance on just that attitude :).

[mfbukowski]

So you going to hack everyone who doesn't agree with you Mr Smiley?

Edited September 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Fearless, you're Ryan McNight, right?  The Mormon Leaks guy?  The same guy who's doing an expressly anti-Mormon podcast in Spanish?  Bro, you are all over the internet stating in no uncertain terms, proudly, that your goal is to do as much damage to the church and drive as many people out of it as possible.  Very few who get branded with the "anti" label deserve it, but you are one of them.  And I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's a simple statement of fact.  In the context of who you are, this OP is bizarre.

As for the word "Mormon," I'd be happy to grant LDS Inc. exclusive rights if they were to simultaneously reject the "Christian" label, an argument protestants and catholics have been making for quite some time.  Having grown up in the south witnessing the church fight a never-ending battle/pity party to be included under the Christian umbrella I find it peak hypocrisy to discriminate against groups who would identify as Mormon.

why would Catholics and Baptists want to be denied being Christian?

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, wtrdog said:

... As for the word "Mormon," I'd be happy to grant LDS Inc. exclusive rights if they were to simultaneously reject the "Christian" label, an argument protestants and catholics have been making for quite some time.  Having grown up in the south witnessing the church fight a never-ending battle/pity party to be included under the Christian umbrella I find it peak hypocrisy to discriminate against groups who would identify as Mormon.

I reject your characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "LDS Inc."  (Besides, you forgot the dollar sign: Everybody knows it's LD$ Inc.  )  I also reject your characterization that arguments by the Church of Jesus Christ that it deserves to be included under the Christian umbrella as a mere "pity party."  I don't think that Dan Peterson's Offenders for a Word, or Robert E. Wells' We Are Christians Because, or Stephen E. Robinson's Are Mormons Christian?, e.g., can be dismissed quite so easily.

Anyone who believes that Christ is who He claimed to be during His earthly ministry and who strives earnestly to follow His teachings may claim the label "Christian," sectarian divisions notwithstanding. Claims by the Church of Jesus Christ to the label "Mormon" and accompanying desire to not be confused with other groups who also attempt to use that label, are, by contrast, easily distinguishable. 

I hesitate to use this analogy, since you've already dismissed the Church of Jesus Christ as "LD$, Inc."  However, since your mind already is made up on that score and I am unlikely to change it, let's say you design an innovative vehicle, the WTR-1000 HP ("HP" stands for "High Performance," or, perhaps, for "Horsepower," and the "1000" for the maximum horsepower achievable by this innovative vehicle).  Let's say that your vehicle combines high performance, a reasonable price, and fuel economy to such a degree that you quickly corner the market.

Let's say that another companies, eager to cash in on your success but not wanting to put the same hard work and other resources that you've expended into research and development, come up with the TRW-1000 HP.  But the TRW isn't nearly as innovative, that it isn't nearly as fuel efficient, that it isn't capable of achieving anywhere near a thousand horsepower, and that the only reason why it's so cheap is because it isn't nearly as well built.  No doubt, you would take great umbrage if a brand you worked so hard to build had its market share diluted by the maker of a cheap knockoff who didn't want to put in all of that hard work, but simply wanted to take unfair advantage of your success. 

If the Church of Jesus Christ teaches a, b, and c, but the "Church of Jesus Christ (Kenngo1969-ite)" also teaches a, but it also teaches x, y, and z, perhaps you can understand why the original would not want to be confused with any breakaway sects (I realize my analogy isn't perfect because there is an inherent subjectivity that creeps into matters of faith that does not exist in the binary matter of whether a manufacturer makes the WTR-1000 HP or whether it does not, and whether a competitor makes a product comparable to the WTR-1000 HP or not, but it still serves to make the point.)

[Bobbieaware]

Why all the concern and clamor among many Latter-Day Saints that the Restored Church of Christ should be included in the list of non-LDS Christian religions when the non-LDS world defines a Christian religion as one that DENIES the following: 1) the need for continuing revelation, 2) the need for  priesthood authority conferred from heaven, 3) living apostles and prophets, 4) angelic ministration, 5) additional scripture for further divine light and knowledge, 6) celestial marriage, 7) eternal families, 8: temple ordinances for the salvation of the dead, 9) three degrees of glory,  10) the materiality of God, 11) humans are the literal spirit offspring of God, 12) men and women can become like their heavenly parents -- theosis 13) the existence of a divine heavenly mother, 14) the divine mandate to establish Zion on the earth, 15) the Book of Mormon is the word of God, 16) there was a great apostasy, 17) there was a First Vision, etc.

Like it or not, the items included in the above partial list of essential LDS Church doctrines and characteristics are not considered to be correct doctrines and principles of mainstream Christianity. So in light of these indisputable facts, why do some Latter-Day Saints want their Church to be included as just another ecclesiastical organization in the long list of apostate Christian religions? In fact, I would even go so far as to say that if the LDS Church is ever accepted in the list of mainstream Christian churches it will be a sign the Latter-Day Saints must be doing something wrong. The scriptures make it clear the true Church of Christ will never be popular or accepted by the world.

[stemelbow]

I don't know.  I've been trying to make the more than one way to Mormon work for years.  In circles like Sunstone it works because the assumption is there is room to view Mormonism differently.  But it's clear many active Mormons won't hear of it.

It's fair for me, I think, to acknowledge to those who don't want Mormonism to be a big tent, that their reasoning or position works too.  I can see why some want to eschew many things as not Mormon.  They seem to fear the inevitable of such acceptance.  More will be accepted.  I mean I want the more to be accepted.  I want walls and barriers broken down.  But I get that its easier to keep it neat and clean.  To put labels on people and keep the ugly out.  There's a quaintness to it.  But I won't stop pushing against that because I think people are too worth it, otherwise. 

[wtrdog]

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I reject your characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "LDS Inc." 

Tell me how much I care...

All your long-winded screed accomplished was proving my point, that the church treats labels like corporate branding.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which must be fully and correctly enunciated without pausing for air, tend to be hypocritical and self serving when it comes to these labels/brands.  "We are the original Mormons!"  LOL, yeah, keep telling yourself that.  The Brighimite tradition has no more right to the brand than any of the other schisms.  Even arguing that the modern LDS Inc. version of the church has claim to the Brighimite tradition is itself quite dubious.  If you were transported back in time to the 19th century the church would look nothing like what you believe today.  You'd last a week before resigning.  Except there wouldn't actually be a way to resign back then.  You'd just move as far away as possible.  But my point really doesn't even have anything to do with this.  

The basic LDS "we're Christian too" argument has to do with a belief in Christ.  It's that simple.  We claim a belief in Christ, therefore, we deserve to be called Christians too.  Using this same argument, anybody who utilizes the Book of Mormon can reasonably claim the "Mormon" title as well.  You say, no, we're the original Mormons.  Ok, well that's the same argument Baptists use when they argue that Mormons are NOT Christian.  Because the Christian label has a history, a history that Mormons are not a part of.  Of course Mormons would say they are part of it, because the ancient church was the same church, apostasy, restoration, etc., but this is a fantasy land argument that isn't based on the historical record but modern spiritual claims.  Even putting the history aside, let's be honest, the beliefs/theology are far removed from mainstream Christianity.  Muslims believe in Christ too.  Why aren't they considered Christian?  Because they regard Christ differently.  Well, Mormons also regard Christ very differently than the broader Christian community.  And this is why part of the Christian community doesn't think it's fair for Mormons to go by the Christian label.  They don't want the "Christian" label watered down to include everything under the sun.  They think there should be a litmus test of basic beliefs, and if you can't check those boxes off, Not Christian.  

Honestly, I find the whole thing stupid.  

Mormons get worked up about being called Christians simply because they are insecure.  It's part of the whole persecution complex thing, and this is how it was taught to me growing up.  I was raised to believe that my neighbors hated me and they'd persecute me, Satan would try to tear down the true church, blah blah, church of satan, blah blah, and I was told in advance that evidence of this would be things like people telling me I'm not Christian when I totally am Christian, or something.  So then when I'd interact with a Baptist or someone and religion would come up and they commented that we weren't Christian, yep, just as was foretold, I'm being persecuted!  Except it wasn't persecution at all.  I mean there is some of that, but very rare.  They were right for one, but for two the were not driven by some hostile agenda against the church.  They were merely trying to understand and/or point out that our beliefs re Christ are very different from theirs.  We don't actually believe in the same guy.  We both believe in a guy named Christ, but like varying interpretations of Batman or some other fictional character, our interpretations vary to a point that we are not envisioning the same being at all.  For some reason though Mormons are obsessed with being "included" by the group.  If they aren't fully accepted, persecution!

I don't have a problem with Mormons being considered Christian.   I'm just pointing out that it's very hypocritical for LDS Inc. Mormons to take the same attitude about the Mormon label.  The branding rules will change next week anyway.  First we're told not to use the Mormon label, it has been blacklisted, by corporate decree we're trying to distance ourselves from it.  And then next thing we're registering mormon.org and handing out "I'm a Mormon" cards and putting on yellow tee shirts.  Oh, but be sure to point out that those FLDS guys aren't Mormon, only we are!  Oh, really?  We must distance again and avoid the Mormon label when it's considered bad and instead fully say "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."  Don't want any confusion.  What will the focus group decide next?  

Members get PTSD writing their Sunday talks because they're so nervous about just getting the darn name right and not having someone call them out.  What are we calling ourselves this week?  Insanity.

I remember when RLDS renamed to Community of Christ and hearing all kinds of gossip/mockery about this at church.  This was presented as an example of how they can't possibly be the true church, it's evidence that we really are (but we never doubted), because LOL, they changed their brand name to be a bit more user friendly.  How awful!  Signs of the times!

 

[wtrdog]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why all the concern and clamor among many Latter-Day Saints that the Restored Church of Christ should be included in the list of non-LDS Christian religions when the non-LDS world defines a Christian religion as one that DENIES the following... why do some Latter-Day Saints want their Church to be included as just another ecclesiastical organization in the long list of apostate Christian religions? 

See what I mean?

And of course, never forget to capitalize, Restored Church of Christ!  You forgot to add the (TM) at the end though.  Restored Church of Christ (TM), much better.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  I've been trying to make the more than one way to Mormon work for years.  In circles like Sunstone it works because the assumption is there is room to view Mormonism differently.  But it's clear many active Mormons won't hear of it.

I welcome Mormons of all (well, most) stripes in the Church, and hope that they continue to move forward within it.  This includes people who are struggling, who have doubts/concerns about doctrine/history, and so on.  We are all on a faith journey together.

However, it seems like we run into a problem with members of the Church who are struggling, have doubts/concerns, etc. present those problems in a public sphere, and then complain when others respond to or rebut those concerns.  In other words, it seems like some of these folks want other members to endorse their doubts/concerns, to embrace them.  This can lead to more proactive efforts to go beyond expressing doubts/concerns to proselytizing amongst the members of the Church.  Sowing seeds of doubt and discontent.  That is problematic.

I also have concerns when members of the Church "agitate" in the Church, when they employ sociopolitical philosophies and tactics to attack and confront the Church, to make the Church look bad, to bring social pressure to bear, to seek to coerce/manipulate the Church into capitulating on its practices and/or doctrines.

These are the things I "won't hear of."  These are the things I will oppose.  Vigorously.

Quote

It's fair for me, I think, to acknowledge to those who don't want Mormonism to be a big tent, that their reasoning or position works too. 

I disagree.  Ours is a missionary church.  We have a mandate to proclaim the Restored Gospel to the entire world.  We love to see growth in the Church.  We would love to see the "tent" become as big as possible.

But it seems like some folks want to make the tent "bigger" by tearing it down.  By making the tent radically different from what it is and what it is intended to be.  By eliminating or ignoring many of the attributes that makes the Church what it is.

The Church cannot grow, cannot become a "big{ger} tent," by forsaking revealed truths.  By ditching the foundational claims of Joseph Smith.  By disregarding what the Book of Mormon claims for itself, and what Joseph Smith claimed, and the Witnesses.  By disregarding the structure of the Church.  By blowing off (or worse, actively and publicly criticizing and opposing) the leaders of the Church in their efforts to adhere to revelatory mandates.

This, I think, is the concern of "active Mormons."  This is what they "won't hear of."

Quote

I can see why some want to eschew many things as not Mormon.  They seem to fear the inevitable of such acceptance.  More will be accepted.  I mean I want the more to be accepted.  I want walls and barriers broken down.  But I get that its easier to keep it neat and clean.  To put labels on people and keep the ugly out.  There's a quaintness to it.  But I won't stop pushing against that because I think people are too worth it, otherwise. 

I think you are substantially mischaracterizing the motives and intent of "active Mormons."  You are falsely imputing onto us some sort of weird accusation of xenophobia, where we actively support the Church's missionary efforts, where we spend untold amounts of time and money and effort to preach the Restored Gospel and invite anyone who will listen to join our faith, but then we turn around and seek to actively exclude people from the Church?  Come again?

The Church imposes conditions on membership in the Church.  The central condition is faith.  Not the-moving-of-mountains type of faith.  But some measure of faith sufficient to act on.  And then . . . comes action.  Conduct.  Behavior.  Receipt of ordinances.  Attendance at church.  Observance of behavioral codes (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, Tithing, etc.).  Service to others.  Improvement of self.  Obeying the law.  Meaningfully contributing to and uplifting society.  Following the counsel of the Brethren.  Focus on family.  Rinse, lather, repeat.

My sense here is that there are elements within the Church that seek to radically alter two of the foregoing items.  The first would be rejecting some of the core components relating to our faith, namely, rejection of most or all of what Joseph Smith said and did about the Book of Mormon, and rejection of the Book of Mormon for what it claims for itself and what the prophets and apostles have said.  The second is radically revising the Law of Chastity (particularly, but not exclusively, regarding its proscriptions as to homosexual behavior).

The "Restored" part of the "Restored Gospel" pertains mostly to a restoration of priesthood authority, and all that comes with it, such as an open canon (the Book of Mormon), authority to administer sacred ordinances and lead the Church (the General Authorities), and so on.  These are things things which, according to you, have "a quaintness" about them.  I will have to respectfully disagree about that.  

I want the entire world to listen to have the opportunity to listen to and accept the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I really mean that.  What I don't want is to have self-selected agitators and critics and opponents of the Lord's anointed to start dictating to the General Authorities and the generation membership of the Church about how we need to abandon those parts of the Restored Gospel that are difficult to understand, or socially unpopular.  I want to keep and preserve that which has been revealed to us, both collectively through ancient and modern prophets, and individually through our own efforts.

I want the tent to be big.  I want it to be huge.  But I want the tent to be the one founded by God and led by His chosen servants.  That means . . . boundaries.  Not arbitrary boundaries.  Not boundaries set up by men.  But boundaries which God has imposed.  Boundaries comprised of covenants as to both faith and conduct.  Everyone is welcome to enter into those covenants, to promise to obey God and keep His commandments, and hence enter the tent.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2017 by smac97

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

See what I mean?

And of course, never forget to capitalize, Restored Church of Christ!  You forgot to add the (TM) at the end though.  Restored Church of Christ (TM), much better.

What do you mean? Please elaborate...One sentence and 15 seconds of your time should suffice if your are concise.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

... Honestly, I find the whole thing stupid.  ...

As would be any attempt to dialogue with you further.  

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

What do you mean? Please elaborate...One sentence and 15 seconds of your time should suffice if your are concise.

Don't forget that old saying about rasslin' with pigs.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

All your long-winded screed accomplished was proving my point, that the church treats labels like corporate branding.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which must be fully and correctly enunciated without pausing for air, tend to be hypocritical and self serving when it comes to these labels/brands.  "We are the original Mormons!"  LOL, yeah, keep telling yourself that.  The Brighimite tradition has no more right to the brand than any of the other schisms.  Even arguing that the modern LDS Inc. version of the church has claim to the Brighimite tradition is itself quite dubious.  If you were transported back in time to the 19th century the church would look nothing like what you believe today.  You'd last a week before resigning.  Except there wouldn't actually be a way to resign back then.  You'd just move as far away as possible.  But my point really doesn't even have anything to do with this.  

The differentiation between this and the OP should be easy to spot.

I have said before that "Mormonism" encompasses more than just the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  The CoC, the FLDS, the Hedrickites, etc have every right to be called Mormons too.  One current academic label for the umbrella is "restorationist movement".
I don't believe that the LDS Church has any right to claim to be the only Mormon religion.  If Joseph Smith, the restoration, and the Book of Mormon is accepted as from God by an organization they are Mormon.  Even if they aren't LDS.  So in the way wtrdog put it, there is more than one way to mormon.

But the OP specifically says:

Quote

 

I often wonder if there needs to be an exmormon community and a mormon community...and a whole spectrum of communities in between.  Can't we all just be Mormons?  I know I want that.

Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?  Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

 

Do we see the difference here?  
One is acknowledging that more religious beliefs than just the LDS Church accept of Joseph and the restoration and the Book Mormon.  They can rightly be included as "Mormon".
The other is requesting that those who reject Mormonism, the ex-Mormons and critics, who chose to walk away from Joseph or the Book or Mormon or the restoration can still be welcomed under the Mormon umbrella.

(And yes, I think if we transported the majority of Church members back to the days of Joseph and Brigham they'd apostatize in droves.  They'd never be able to accept the 19th century LDS Church).

[wtrdog]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But the OP specifically says:

Clearly FearlessFixxer is up to no good.  No disagreement there, which is why I called him out.  In principle though, whether ex-members can be called Mormon or not, that's way above my pay grade.  That seems to me like the kind of thing that comes with time and place.  The Catholics and Jews have been around so long they have such cultural identities.  I'm not sure whether the Mormon community is either old enough or large enough for that.  Most ex-members though, if you've taken the action of removing  your name from the roles, I'm not sure they would "want" to be identified as mormon.  What if you're only "inactive?"  My name is still on the books and I don't intend to remove it.  I also don't intend to attend anytime in the near future though.  Could I still identify as Mormon?  I'm not sure I would ever really want to.  I could see the desire fluctuating depending on the situation though.  In strictly non-LDS settings I would probably not want to be known as Mormon, maybe even go out of my way to make sure people know I'm not if they have reason to think I am.  But then in LDS settings, like family events, or maybe if I join the local ward as part of a service project, etc., maybe in those settings I would want to be included with the group and not be branded with a scarlet letter.

[thesometimesaint]

It is one of perception. We aren't Mormon's church. Active knowledgeable LDS generally don't have a big problem with being called Mormon's. I won't bite someone's head off for calling me a Mormon.Though I personally prefer to be called a Latter-day Saint.To the larger world, though, we are the Mormon's. When someone say's "Mormon's" they are most likely referring to us. The second biggest group of Mormon's are RLDS, now called the CoC. I don't see them as lasting much longer as a viable organization.

[smac97]

On 9/27/2017 at 12:37 PM, wtrdog said:

Clearly FearlessFixxer is up to no good.  No disagreement there, which is why I called him out.  In principle though, whether ex-members can be called Mormon or not, that's way above my pay grade.  

"Mormon" has a fairly concrete meaning, which is "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  That is literally the dictionary definition.

So a person who is no longer "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is no longer a "Mormon."

I previously served in the U.S. Army, but I was discharged in 1999.  It would therefore be inappropriate for me to claim that I am a servicemember or soldier (that is, that I am presently in the Armed Services of the United States).  And it would be inappropriate because . . . I'm not presently  not a servicemember or soldier.

I am presently a member of the Utah State Bar.  If I were to surrender my membership in the Utah State Bar, it would be inappropriate for me to thereafter claim that I am still a member of the Utah State Bar.

And so on and so forth.

Quote

That seems to me like the kind of thing that comes with time and place.  The Catholics and Jews have been around so long they have such cultural identities.  

A person is a member of the Catholic Church if they have been baptized into it and have not resigned or been excommunicated.

Whether or not someone is "Jewish" is a lot more complex because A) "Jewishness" may refer to the ethnicity and/or the religious affiliation, and B) there is no "gatekeeping" function as to who is Jewish and who is not (unlike, say, the Catholic and LDS Churches, both of which have membership rolls and records).

Quote

I'm not sure whether the Mormon community is either old enough or large enough for that.  

I don't think it ever will be a "cultural identity" in the same sense "Jewishness" is.  Again, a "Mormon" is  "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  There is a gatekeeping function that delineates Mormons (people who have been baptized into the LDS Church) from everyone else.

Quote

Most ex-members though, if you've taken the action of removing  your name from the roles, I'm not sure they would "want" to be identified as mormon.  

Agreed.

Quote

What if you're only "inactive?" 

Then you are a "less active" Mormon, but still "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Quote

My name is still on the books and I don't intend to remove it.  I also don't intend to attend anytime in the near future though.  Could I still identify as Mormon?  

If you are still "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," then yes.  Otherwise, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2020 by smac97

[wtrdog]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Mormon" has a fairly concrete meaning, which is "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  That is literally the dictionary definition.

I don't agree.  As has been said, there are many other "mormon" or "restorationist" churches that utilize the BOM.  Like FLDS, CoC, Remnant, etc.  It's actually quite shocking how long the list of non-LDS "mormon" movements there are out there.  There's a lot of them.  The Snuffer folks believe LDS church has apostatized.  They are yet another restoration in the process of unfolding.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Mormon" has a fairly concrete meaning, which is "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  That is literally the dictionary definition.

So a person who is no longer "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is no longer a "Mormon."

I just can't agree with that completely.
All hoovers may be vacuums but not all vacuums are hoovers.
All LDS may be Mormon, but not all Mormons are LDS.  Regardless of common usage.
A Mormon believes in the Book of Mormon.  

It also depends on your dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Mormon says "latter-day saint; especially :a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
Especially, not exclusively. 
Generally speaking Mormon refers to a member of the LDS Church.  That is in most dictionaries.  But as with all words and names, it can be reattributed by usage.
Also, what of people like those members of fundamentalist groups that consider themselves members of the LDS Church, even though the Church does not.
Does the Church have to consent to someone being called a Mormon?
 

Just now, wtrdog said:

I don't agree.  As has been said, there are many other "mormon" or "restorationist" churches that utilize the BOM.  Like FLDS, CoC, Remnant, etc.  It's actually quite shocking how long the list of non-LDS "mormon" movements there are out there.  There's a lot of them.  The Snuffer folks believe LDS church has apostatized.  They are yet another restoration in the process of unfolding.

Agreed.

[Guest]

On September 26, 2017 at 2:32 PM, FearlessFixxer said:

Bad ideas and actions deserve to be mocked and insulted.  We do this with everything in life, why would religion be exempt.  For me, the key would be to not make it personal and just as much about the facts as possible and then we respect the different conclusions people come to. 

So you see yourself as the "hero" that will inform us all of our error and the Church's error? Maybe step back for a moment and see how wearing the proud badge of being an "ex-Mormon", and leaking private information so that all might see. Maybe you will get an idea of what an "apostate" is, and how it might be received on a website such as this. Or, maybe you can't see how insulting it could be to others. Revenge and recrimination, show no reason, nor purpose, but to the one engaging in such behavior. What are you really after, or better stated, what are you really about?