Is There Really More Than One Way to Mormon?

[wtrdog]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does the Church have to consent to someone being called a Mormon?

No, but apparently some corporation that goes by the name Intellectual Reserve thinks its consent is required, lol...

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/church-latter-day-saints-sues-mormon-dating-site/

https://www.law360.com/articles/550306/mormon-dating-site-settles-trademark-spat-with-lds-church

You'll note that this guys website is now gone too.  I wonder if the "settlement" included an invitation to meet with the stake president?  Perhaps they bought his domain from him.  There is an LDS MatchUp site, similar name.  My observation is that the church is really controlling over this word, for whatever reason.  It's like the church simultaneously wants to distance itself from the name while controlling how it is used by others, as a means to control internet/media and alter the perception of what it means.

[Kenngo1969]

Mr. Fixxer:

I asked you a question on the other thread.  I'd be interested to see what your response might be.  (I would post that question here, but I don't want to derail this thread).  

-Ken

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

I don't agree.  As has been said, there are many other "mormon" or "restorationist" churches that utilize the BOM.  

And how many of them describe themselves as "Mormons?"

44 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

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.  

But how many of them have members who describe themselves as "Mormons?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

They can call themselves a slice of French Toast for all I care. But what I sense is desire to deceive.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I just can't agree with that completely.
All hoovers may be vacuums but not all vacuums are hoovers.

Agreed.  But I think "Mormon" is a qualitatively different taxonomic reference.  As applied to individuals, it references members of the LDS Church.

Quote

All LDS may be Mormon, but not all Mormons are LDS.  Regardless of common usage.

A Mormon believes in the Book of Mormon.  

With respect, I disagree.  Check out these definitions.  Virtually all of them specifically define "Mormon" (as a noun) as being a member of the LDS Church.

I can only claim to be a "servicemember" (enlisted in the U.S. Army) if I am actually recognized as such by the U.S. Army.

I can only claim to be a "bar member" (a member of the Utah State Bar) if I am actually recognized as such by the Utah State Bar.

I can only claim to be an employee of my employer if I am actually recognized as such by my employer.

I can only claim to be a U.S. Citizen if I am actually recognized as such by the U.S. Government.

There are groups which have "gatekeeping functions."  In such circumstances, membership in that group is determined by the group, not by the individual's personal preferences.  I think the LDS Church is just such a group.  And I think "Mormon," as a noun applied to individual persons, is almost universally recognized as referring to members of the LDS Church.

Quote

Does the Church have to consent to someone being called a Mormon?

I think the Church will generally not police such a thing.  However, I can formulate a situation where the LDS Church may need to dispute a person's claim of being a member of the Church.  And that person may make that claim by saying something like "I am a Mormon."  And that statement would be pretty much universally recognized as a claim of membership in the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

They can call themselves a slice of French Toast for all I care. But what I sense is desire to deceive.

Yes, that is my assessment as well.

Consider, for example, the "Stolen Valor Act of 2013," which makes it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that he or she received the award.  The 2013 version was a revision of the original 2005 iteration, which was struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.  

To put it simply, the 2005 version was struck down because the Supreme Court held that held that the Act's prohibition against making false statements of having been awarded a military medal violated the First Amendment.  The plurality opinion's rationale (agreed to by four justices) was that false statements are not, by the sole reason of their falsity, excluded from First Amendment protection.  In contrast, the concurring opinion (signed by two justices) utterly disregarded the plurality opinion and held that the statute was unconstitutional based on a distinct constitutional analytical framework ("intermediate scrutiny" instead of the "strict scrutiny" test used in the plurality opinion), and finding that the statute was problematic because there were lesser restrictive means to achieve the governmental interests in regulating speech.

Nevertheless, the very fact that this statute exists means something.  Our society recognizes that someone wearing a Congressional Medal of Honor ribbon has actually been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  The symbol has a specific and intended meaning, and therefore should not be appropriated willy-nilly by someone who is not entitled to the honor associated with the symbol, and who instead is resorting to deceit.

For what it's worth, I'm not really invested in this.  I don't really care if an ex-Mormon wants to continue to call himself a Mormon.  In a way, such a thing may reflect that person's inchoate or subconscious yearning to return to the Church.  I think such sentiments would be fine.  However, if there is a "desire to deceive," as you put it, in someone calling himself a Mormon, then that's a different ball o' wax.

Thanks,

Smac

[SmileyMcGee]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

I wouldn't object to the use of a different nickname

[wtrdog]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And how many of them describe themselves as "Mormons?"

But how many of them have members who describe themselves as "Mormons?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea.  Relevance?  Even if it's only one person, doesn't matter.  Who is the "authority" on the English word "Mormon?"  Frankly the discussion is moot because no such authority exists.  You can pitch a fit and say someone "is not Mormon" until you are blue in the face, all the while that person can go around saying they are Mormon.  Without the power to enforce your opinion on the rest of us the whole argument is a toothless tiger.  Words mean whatever society says they mean, however society decides to use them.  Incidentally, I do know the FLDS go by the Mormon label.  And I also know that outside the Mormon world they are regarded by society as Mormon, which I would consider an accurate label.  I have seen the press sometimes refer to them as "fundamentalist Mormons" to distinguish with the LDS church.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

I wouldn't object to the use of a different nickname

Lol ok you got it!

[Avatar4321]

On 9/26/2017 at 1:06 PM, The Nehor said:

Yes, I think we need more of that kind of understanding.

*Pushes secret panic button*

(whispering) We have got a Heretic here. Send Danite backup immediately.

Sheesh nehor. We didn't give you that button to abuse it

[Avatar4321]

Am I the only one who is picturing a wolf asking a flock of sheep "can't we all be sheep"?

[Avatar4321]

8 hours ago, 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.

Whether you agree or not doesn't change that the definition of Mormon is literally a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Sheesh nehor. We didn't give you that button to abuse it

You put a big button on my desk and did not expect me to abuse it?

Really, this is your fault.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I have no idea.  Relevance?  

Usage matters.  There is no centralized authority as to the definition of terms.

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Even if it's only one person, doesn't matter.  Who is the "authority" on the English word "Mormon?"  

Common usage, I think, carries the day.

If 1,000 Americans were asked what they understand the word "Mormon" means, used as a noun and applied to an individual, I bet the vast majority of them would say "A Mormon is a member of the Mormon Church."  If pressed, they would clarify that they mean the one headquartered in Salt Lake City, the one that sends out tens of thousands of missionaries in dorky bike helmets, the one in which Donny Osmond is a member, etc.

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Frankly the discussion is moot because no such authority exists.  You can pitch a fit and say someone "is not Mormon" until you are blue in the face, all the while that person can go around saying they are Mormon.  

Again, I said: "For what it's worth, I'm not really invested in this.  I don't really care if an ex-Mormon wants to continue to call himself a Mormon.  In a way, such a thing may reflect that person's inchoate or subconscious yearning to return to the Church.  I think such sentiments would be fine.  However, if there is a 'desire to deceive,' as you put it, in someone calling himself a Mormon, then that's a different ball o' wax."

So no fit-pitching here.

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Without the power to enforce your opinion on the rest of us the whole argument is a toothless tiger.  Words mean whatever society says they mean, however society decides to use them.  

I agree.  And in "society," "Mormon" = "member of the Mormon (LDS) Church."

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Incidentally, I do know the FLDS go by the Mormon label.  

I question how widespread that is.  I have a friend, who is LDS (in Utah County), and who is a general contractor who occasionally hires a particular subcontracting crew on various projects.  One day he struck up a conversation with one of the crew members, and the discussion turned to religion.  The crew member mentioned that he and his family were "Mormons," at which point my friend asked him about which ward he attends.  A fellow crew member, who had overheard the conversation, came over and told the other one to "come clean," at which point the first guy said something like "Actually, we're polygamists, so..."  My friend, an eminently nice fellow, continued in the conversation and they moved on to other topics.

The gist of the conversation, then, was that these guys knew that calling themselves "Mormons" has a substantial of leading to misunderstanding, so much so that their use of the term needed immediate clarification/correction ("coming clean," as it were).

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

And I also know that outside the Mormon world they are regarded by society as Mormon,

"Mormon" as a broad, sociological adjective, perhaps.  But "Mormon" as a noun applied to individuals?  Nope.

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

which I would consider an accurate label.  

Without the power to enforce your opinion on the rest of us the whole argument is a toothless tiger.

15 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I have seen the press sometimes refer to them as "fundamentalist Mormons" to distinguish with the LDS church.  

The AP Stylebook states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."  

You are correct that "the term Mormon is widely used by journalists and non-journalists to refer to adherents of Mormon fundamentalism."  This practice perpetuates confusion and inaccuracy, as I have many times encountered news items which conflate the FLDS folks with the LDS Church, which is factually incorrect.  

Nevertheless, I don't really care if some FLDS folks call themselves "Mormons."  I'm just not that invested in the issue.  However, if there is a 'desire to deceive,' as another poster put it, in a person calling himself a Mormon, then that's a different ball o' wax.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/26/2017 at 1:39 PM, FearlessFixxer said:

how about  we start with the fact that what Brighamite Branch of Mormonism calls sin my not be the same as other branches of the LDS faith or former members so maybe one should keep there opinions of who in danger of god's wrath to themselves....

Who are the  "Brighamite Branch of Mormonism" ?  Do you mean active Mormons? 

[FearlessFixxer]

26 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Who are the  "Brighamite Branch of Mormonism" ?  Do you mean active Mormons? 

The mainstream LDS Church as opposed to one of the 100s of offshoots

[FearlessFixxer]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Am I the only one who is picturing a wolf asking a flock of sheep "can't we all be sheep"?

So, I am required to have respectful posts and comments here, but I guess that rule does not apply to everyone else?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

So, I am required to have respectful posts and comments here, but I guess that rule does not apply to everyone else?

I think it is obvious that non-believers are looked at with more scrutiny here and derisive comments against the non-believer are allowed and the non-believer better behave in return.  This is a believing site and so belief is elevated and non-belief is discounted as much as possible.  We are guests here.

[Jeanne]

Well as an ex mormon who still holds some core values of the church...and admire, love my heritage....my family calls me..late for dinner!

[thesometimesaint]

There are some 33,000 flavors of  Christian churches in the world. I'm fine with calling them Christians, even if I do disagree with some of their individual doctrines.

[FearlessFixxer]

12 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is obvious that non-believers are looked at with more scrutiny here and derisive comments against the non-believer are allowed and the non-believer better behave in return.  This is a believing site and so belief is elevated and non-belief is discounted as much as possible.  We are guests here.

And I have done nothing to violate that 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

And I have done nothing to violate that 

Responding to your post, I don't think the church leadership/organization wants to validate the non-believer at all. They view us from poor lost souls on one end to cancer on the other end of the spectrum. So, any coming together won't happen in my opinion. It reminds me of the statement heard in conference many times (slippery slope argument) that goes something like this: first acknowledgement, then tolerance, then acceptance, then adoption.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Responding to your post, I don't think the church leadership/organization wants to validate the non-believer at all.

I think you substantially and profoundly misrepresent the vast majority of leaders and members of the Church.

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

They view us from poor lost souls on one end to cancer on the other end of the spectrum. 

Again, I think you substantially and profoundly misrepresent the vast majority of leaders and members of the Church.

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, any coming together won't happen in my opinion. It reminds me of the statement heard in conference many times (slippery slope argument) that goes something like this: first acknowledgement, then tolerance, then acceptance, then adoption.

The phrase I think you have in mind, a quote from Alexander Pope, is about "vice" (as in sin):

Quote

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

This quote has indeed been referenced by leaders of the LDS Church, but to refer to sins or misconduct, such as viewing pornography and other forms of destructive media, sexual immorality, and so on.

I have never seen or heard of any General Authority or member of the Church using the foregoing quote to condemn former members of the Church.  Never.

Again, you substantially and profoundly misrepresent the vast majority of leaders and members of the Church.

-Smac

[Pete Ahlstrom]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you substantially and profoundly misrepresent the vast majority of leaders and members of the Church.

Again, I think you substantially and profoundly misrepresent the vast majority of leaders and members of the Church.

The phrase I think you have in mind, a quote from Alexander Pope, is about "vice" (as in sin):

This quote has indeed been referenced by leaders of the LDS Church, but to refer to sins or misconduct, such as viewing pornography and other forms of destructive media, sexual immorality, and so on.

I have never seen or heard of any General Authority or member of the Church using the foregoing quote to condemn former members of the Church.  Never.

Again, you substantially and profoundly misrepresent the vast majority of leaders and members of the Church.

-Smac

Then why the excommunication of people like John Dehlin or others who disagree? Why excommunication for apostasy at all? Surely actions say a lot and just because something isn't said doesn't mean it isn't implied.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Then why the excommunication of people like John Dehlin or others who disagree?

I don't follow.  What about John Dehlin or others is relevant to what I said in my previous post.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why excommunication for apostasy at all?

We have a mandate for such things.  And that mandate makes sense.  We are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  When we ignore apostasy, we weaken our community.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Surely actions say a lot and just because something isn't said doesn't mean it isn't implied.

The implication is a fabrication of your own making.

I invite you to review the statements of, say, Elder Richard G. Scott, and then come back and explain how he "implies" that former members are - to use your term - "cancer."  For that matter, please present any citation to a General Authority characterizing former members as "cancer" or impliedly doing so.   

Thanks,

-Smac