“Relaxed but Engaged” Mormons

[Walden]

This thread reminds me of one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes:  "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity"

[Gray]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

But I don't believe that the WoW is a commandment from God because I need strict rules and my protestant friend doesn't think it's NOT a commandment because they believe strict rules are a hindrance.  I've never known anyone who decides whether or not a commandment is of God based it's strictness.

My husband was a practicing (and very active) Lutheran before he joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's not like he had believed that he didn't need a religion with strict rules when he was Lutheran and then decided that he actually did need strict rules to have a good relationship with God when he decided to join the church.  

This is why I disagree that your premise is a fact.  

I think ultimately people end up staying long-term in the spiritual path that gets them closest to God, barring some kind of high barrier to entry/exit.

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/30/2018 at 3:06 AM, SteveO said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/09/29/more-millennial-mormons/

I’m doing this on my phone at the airport, so hopefully the format holds up.

An article from the SLtrib that I found somewhat discouraging.  At first I thought it was a story about Mormons who occasionally deviated from the WoW...but it gets a little more interesting towards the end.  Few highlights:

Church leaders and members “should keep in mind that about a quarter of those in the pews every week are ‘relaxed but engaged,’” Knoll writes,  “That means that there is a sizable minority who find value in the social aspect of the church but who don’t believe wholeheartedly in LDS Church teachings, don’t pay tithing, don’t hold a temple recommend, and who drink coffee and alcohol and take the counsel of church leaders with a grain of salt.”

Homer hasn’t renewed her recommend because, she says, she finds the temple ceremony “irredeemably sexist.”

She does not wear temple garments but is “deeply committed” to the “personal covenants with God [she made in the temple] about loving my fellow sisters and brothers.”

In the end, Homer says, “no one else has the power to decide what being Mormon means except for me.”

Obedience as a virtue “may have been more important 40 years ago,” she says, “whereas [authenticity] is one of the leading virtues for many millennials.”

A few of my comments:

I’m not entirely sure what the point is in being a Mormon if you cut out all the parts that are unique.  I guess we’d rather have everyone there than on the outside, but I think the mentality of being “half in” is...rather toxic.  For example, in the case of the BYU student who stopped wearing her garments, that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do...but why then go and tell your roommates and friends?  How do you even broach the subject of what kind of underwear you’ve decided to start wearing.  It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.  There are scriptures that make known the mind of God concerning those who are fence sitters, with makes me think that this isn’t a particularly good thing that is taking place.  

Thoughts?

 

I think it's tricky for some people to realize:

Joseph Smith and his Successors did not create gender nor biology.

Neither did the Savior or His Father, and so on.

The idea that current Church leadership should change x or y doctrine assumes they control these things and helped create them.

-

Honestly, it's kind of difficult for a ward to function without a critical mass of "willing hands who wear the worker's seal," but...more blessings for me, always has a nice ring to it. 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Honestly, it's kind of difficult for a ward to function without a critical mass of "willing hands who wear the worker's seal," but...more blessings for me, always has a nice ring to it. 

This. I went to the temple over the weekend, and my travelling companion was our current elders quorum president. As we journeyed Friday evening, we discussed how the current situation in our ward seems to perfectly illustrate the parable of the talents, and specifically its conclusion: 'For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath'.

I would prefer the blessings be distributed more equitably, but if people really don't want them, well, more blessings for me. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

On 9/30/2018 at 12:06 AM, SteveO said:

For example, in the case of the BYU student who stopped wearing her garments, that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do...but why then go and tell your roommates and friends?  How do you even broach the subject of what kind of underwear you’ve decided to start wearing.  It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.

 

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This. I went to the temple over the weekend, and my travelling companion was our current elders quorum president. As we journeyed Friday evening, we discussed how the current situation in our ward seems to perfectly illustrate the parable of the talents, and specifically its conclusion: 'For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath'.

I would prefer the blessings be distributed more equitably, but if people really don't want them, well, more blessings for me. 

1) Both of these are spot-on. I find that the self-described "relaxed but engaged" have a proselyting zeal about it that belies their "relaxed but engaged" claim. They are no different from the people who agitate for this or that change, really. They are anything but "well, I differ from normative Mormon culture quite a bit about many fundamental things, but hey, to each his own. Live and let live! I'll keep attending and living church life on my terms." They actually chafe quite a bit against the grain of church culture, and are trying to mold it in their image. Futilely, to their chagrin, hence the proselyting. 

2) I agree that the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is well in force, as pertains to gifts of the spirit and sucking the marrow out of what the Church and the gospel have to offer. 

3) "Engagement." It's an educational buzzword, and I find it buzzwordy in this instance with respect to what we would normally call "activity." To reject the temple, the crowning ordinance and goal of Mormonism, means you aren't really "engaged" at all ---- even if you sometimes go to church. You've missed the boat about very important, fundamental things. To think you are "engaged" with simply church attendance while rejecting the temple, or other revelations of Joseph Smith, mean that you aren't Mormon in any meaningful way. You are more generic Protestant than anything else, really. You're just trying to shed the "weird" elements of Mormonism to fit in. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

 

1) Both of these are spot-on. I find that the self-described "relaxed but engaged" have a proselyting zeal about it that belies their "relaxed but engaged" claim. They are no different from the people who agitate for this or that change, really. They are anything but "well, I differ from normative Mormon culture quite a bit about many fundamental things, but hey, to each his own. Live and let live! I'll keep attending and living church life on my terms." They actually chafe quite a bit against the grain of church culture, and are trying to mold it in their image. Futilely, to their chagrin, hence the proselyting. 

2) I agree that the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is well in force, as pertains to gifts of the spirit and sucking the marrow out of what the Church and the gospel have to offer. 

3) "Engagement." It's an educational buzzword, and I find it buzzwordy in this instance with respect to what we would normally call "activity." To reject the temple, the crowning ordinance and goal of Mormonism, means you aren't really "engaged" at all ---- even if you sometimes go to church. You've missed the boat about very important, fundamental things. To think you are "engaged" with simply church attendance while rejecting the temple, or other revelations of Joseph Smith, mean that you aren't Mormon in any meaningful way. You are more generic Protestant than anything else, really. You're just trying to shed the "weird" elements of Mormonism to fit in. 

The reason for this, of course, is that in a Church that emphasizes commitment and covenant making, you really can’t take that “relaxed” attitude and feel comfortable for very long. If they refuse to deepen their commitment, they end up agitatiting for a change, trying to reshape the Church to conform to their own preference, to hi-jack it, as it were. When they subsequently encounter push-back, they feel put upon.

Many years ago, I was called to serve as a Cub Scout den leader. At the time, I had something of a bad attitude about Scouting. I thought there was much about it that was excessively expensive and unnecessarily time consuming without a justifiable cost-benefit ratio. For a while, I considered taking only what I regarded as the best parts of Scouting and ignoring the rest. I soon realized that doesn’t really work, that the program is so integrally structured that you have to be all in or get out. It would be like owning a McDonald’s franchise and electing not to sell Big Macs. It’s not really McDonald’s without them. The issue never really came to a head for me, because shortly thereafter, I sold my house (I was single then) and moved from the ward.

In a way, the Church is like this. It will never be a place where a cafeteria member can feel very comfortable for very long. It is not designed for the tepid, for what the scriptures characterize as neither hot nor cold. “I will spew thee out of my mouth.” 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

 

1) Both of these are spot-on. I find that the self-described "relaxed but engaged" have a proselyting zeal about it that belies their "relaxed but engaged" claim. They are no different from the people who agitate for this or that change, really. They are anything but "well, I differ from normative Mormon culture quite a bit about many fundamental things, but hey, to each his own. Live and let live! I'll keep attending and living church life on my terms." They actually chafe quite a bit against the grain of church culture, and are trying to mold it in their image. Futilely, to their chagrin, hence the proselyting. 

2) I agree that the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is well in force, as pertains to gifts of the spirit and sucking the marrow out of what the Church and the gospel have to offer. For example Hamba's quote here that you responded to.

'For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath'.

I , the blessings more equitably, but if people really don't want them, well, more blessings for me. 

3) "Engagement." It's an educational buzzword, and I find it buzzwordy in this instance with respect to what we would normally call "activity." To reject the temple, the crowning ordinance and goal of Mormonism, means you aren't really "engaged" at all ---- even if you sometimes go to church. You've missed the boat about very important, fundamental things. To think you are "engaged" with simply church attendance while rejecting the temple, or other revelations of Joseph Smith, mean that you aren't Mormon in any meaningful way. You are more generic Protestant than anything else, really. You're just trying to shed the "weird" elements of Mormonism to fit in. 

 

I think it is human nature to proselytize what makes you happy.  You are sure others will find the same joy as you have found.  Certainly, those in the Church that love it and enjoy its doctrines are the ones most likely to be talking the ear off their neighbors and coworkers about their involvement in the church.  Less engaged members feel that same zeal.  They have found that eliminating the things the did not like about the Church or the doctrine that they just can't swallow made their lives in the church so much better.  They find out that so many of the concepts that are taught as eternal truths are really not truths for them.  So when someone makes a claim that something is an eternal truth,  they want to speak up and say, wait, that is not necessarily true.  An example of this is the statement that Hamba made that you were responding to

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This. I went to the temple over the weekend, and my travelling companion was our current elders quorum president. As we journeyed Friday evening, we discussed how the current situation in our ward seems to perfectly illustrate the parable of the talents, and specifically its conclusion: 'For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath'.

I would prefer the blessings be distributed more equitably, but if people really don't want them, well, more blessings for me. 

 I don't believe one bit of that statement is true.  Why?  Because my life and financial resources have done nothing but soar since I left the Church.  Some of it is a direct result of leaving the Church such as my spirituality has grown and my happiness has greatly increased.  I have found a better paradigm for me.  Other things such as my financial growth probably have nothing to do with leaving the church.  But that financial growth certainly has nothing to do with church involvement. And the joy of serving others has increased largely because that service is not an assignment, but freely given.  All of this certainly counters the adage that those who "do God's work in church service" will be blessed more is a false belief to me and many who are less engaged.  So when someone makes such a claim, of course, others that have a different experience want to counter such claim.  For them, it is a false belief.  That is probably why there are many "less engaged" members who feel the need to share their experience outside the strict pigeonholes that the church can put people in. That need to proselytize is very similar to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's need to proselytize its message to others.  Both groups find joy in sharing what has made their lives happy.

Edited October 2, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The reason for this, of course, is that in a Church that emphasizes commitment and covenant making, you really can’t take that “relaxed” attitude and feel comfortable for very long. If they refuse to deepen their commitment, they end up agitatiting for a change, trying to reshape the Church to conform to their own preference, to hi-jack it, as it were. When they subsequently encounter push-back, they feel put upon.

Many years ago, I was called to serve as a Cub Scout den leader. At the time, I had something of a bad attitude about Scouting. I thought there was much about it that was excessively expensive and unnecessarily time consuming without a justifiable cost-benefit ratio. For a while, I considered taking only what I regarded as the best parts of Scouting and ignoring the rest. I soon realized that doesn’t really work, that the program is so integrally structured that you have to be all in or get out. It would be like owning a McDonald’s franchise and electing not to sell Big Macs. It’s not really McDonald’s without them. The issue never really came to a head for me, because shortly thereafter, I sold my house (I was single then) and moved from the ward.

In a way, the Church is like this. It will never be a place where a cafeteria member can feel very comfortable for very long. It is not designed for the tepid, for what the scriptures characterize as neither hot nor cold. “I will spew thee out of my mouth.” 

Your scouting example is actually a perfect example of how this "relaxed but engaged" attitude works for a lot of people.  I worked in the Young Men's program for many years, most of that time with the Varsity age boys.  There were only two or three in the group at any one time that had any interest in obtaining their Eagle.  The rest were engaged in all the activities but had no interest in earning badges, wearing uniforms, attending honor courts, meeting with merit badge counselors etc.  Most of the activities were planned around merit badge requirements.  For example, we would go to a professional photographers studio and have him talk about photography and what was involved in doing his job.  Afterward, I would tell the group of scouts, if any of them wanted a merit badge, they needed to do these additional things.  The boys that wanted the merit badge would follow through, the rest would enjoy the experience, but not do any of the paperwork for the badge.  It didn't decrease their experience with the photographer one bit for them.

Were the "relaxed but engaged" scouts not enjoying the scouting program and getting out of it exactly what they needed?  Should they have left the scouting program because they were not interested in the "reward" of an Eagle badge?  Was it ok for them to tell their friends that they enjoyed going to scouting activity visiting the photographer's studio even though they didn't earn a merit badge? Could they tell the kid that was earning the badge that they had fun, but had no interest in the badge?  

The church tried to adapt the scouting program to fit the needs of the young men for years.  In the end, it didn't work out.  The church believes it has a better way to meet the needs of the young men.  Does that mean the scouting program was not a good program?  There are those die-hard scouters in the church that think leaving the scouting program is a huge mistake.  Is that wrong for them to think that?  

Does this help illustrate how "relaxed but engaged" may work for a quarter of those attending each week in the church but not for everyone?

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

My life and financial resources have done nothing but soar since I left the Church ... And the joy of serving others has increased largely because that service is not an assignment, but freely given.

I'm genuinely happy that you are rich and happy.

I didn't really have either of those things in mind when referring to the blessings the Lord pours out upon the faithful. I was thinking more along the lines of revelations, visions, spiritual gifts, the ministration of angels, power in the priesthood, and such.

To each his own, of course.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, we agree on that much.  If "being Mormon" does not include saving ordinances (going to the temple, getting baptized, etc.), then she is all good (I guess - I'm not sure what "being Mormon" means without the ordinances).  But if "being Mormon" does include temple worship or other ordinances (including baptism), or holding a calling, etc., then she is quite mistaken. 

As I've stated earlier, being "Mormon" can be theological, cultural, social, historical. Aside from baptism, which is required to be a member of the LDS church, the other ordinances and priesthood are extra parts of being Mormon. There are many Mormons who don't have the priesthood and who have never received any additional ordinances or have ever held a calling. But the LDS church isn't the only "Mormon" either. There are many "Mormons" who have NEVER been a part of the LDS church. The LDS church doesn't control or own the word, which is at least partly why, IMO, they are moving away from its use.

In some ways, yes, other ways, no.  Membership is a mutually-agreed-upon kind of thing.  The administration of saving ordinances is a mutually-agreed-upon kind of thing.  

But aside from baptism, which many receive as young children, there are no additional saving ordinances received in the LDS church. That doesn't make them, NOT Mormon. They choose whether they claim the label or not.

The scriptures are quite clear that the saving ordinances come through the Lord's servants. Consider D&C 128:8:

The FLDS agree   But you're focusing wholly on the theological Mormonism. As I've stated, there are other kinds, and even other denominations of Mormonism.

So the records of the Church matter.  The actions of the Church matter.

We also have D&C 132:

This is significant to me.  It speaks both of "revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed" (the prophets and apostles), but also speaks of ordinances needing to be "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise" in order to be efficacious.

I just can't wrap my head around the notion that the role of prophets and apostles, and the priesthood authority they hold and delegate, have no actual meaning.

While you can't wrap your head around it, there are many people who feel exactly that way. Many see church leaders as church managers. Your way is not the only way to view or participate in Mormonism. There are many degrees of engagement and participation and belief and each individual determines their level of Mormonism.

I'll have to disagree with you there.  Excommunication has real meaning.  "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..."

Just because another person's way doesn't fit yours, or even the "official" version of LDS Mormonism, it doesn't mean the person can't still identify as Mormon.

Well, no.  Not really.  What I "consider {my}self" to be is not determinative in most respects.  I "consider myself" to be the husband to my wife, but only so long as she and the state agree on that point.  Absent their consent, I am not her husband.

But being her husband isn't cultural. It is a legalistic determination, similar to your lawyer example.  But I'm arguing against a legalistic interpretation about what it means to be Mormon because no one and no group control the word. I've read that there are over 500 restoration denominations in the US.  Which ones are allowed to claim themselves as Mormon? Who gets to decide? SLC? No. Each individual group gets to determine if they want to identify as Mormon or not because the word means more than a narrow association with one specific church.

I "consider myself" a lawyer, but only insofar as I am licensed by the Utah State Bar.  Without licensure, I am not a lawyer in any meaningful sense.

I "consider myself" a member of the Church in good standing, but only insofar as the Church and the Church's records concur with that.  The Church indisputably has veto power over that assertion.

You conflate being Mormon with being a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I understand that's what it means to you, but your definition of Mormon doesn't apply to everyone else.

"Being Mormon" covers a broad spectrum of people, but the concept is not endlessly malleable.  Membership in the Church has real meaning to me.  Being able to attend the temple and hold callings have real meaning to me.  To hold a recommend and attend the temple (surely one of the more distinctive elements of "being Mormon"), I must submit to the authority of the Church.

I'm not saying it shouldn't mean something to you. IMO, your mistake is in assuming that it should have the same meaning to everyone.

So to the extent "being Mormon" involves participating in its sacred ordinances, the Church plainly does play a part in that.

I don't accept your claim that "being Mormon" involves participating in sacred ordinances, for the reasons already stated. I accept that being Mormon means those things to you, but the LDS church doesn't own the word "Mormon" nor does it control an individual's ability to identify themselves as they choose.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

Quote

Well, we agree on that much.  If "being Mormon" does not include saving ordinances (going to the temple, getting baptized, etc.), then she is all good (I guess - I'm not sure what "being Mormon" means without the ordinances).  But if "being Mormon" does include temple worship or other ordinances (including baptism), or holding a calling, etc., then she is quite mistaken. 

As I've stated earlier, being "Mormon" can be theological, cultural, social, historical.

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  I think "being 'Mormon'" has a fairly precise meaning.  The dictionary agrees with me:

Quote

Mormon

[mawr-muh n]

noun

1. the popular name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

See also here:

Quote

When ABC network’s Prime Time recently aired a program focused on the secretive polygamous community of Colorado City, the reporter repeatedly referred to members of the community as “Mormon polygamists.” In response, the Church points to the Associated Press style guide for journalists which states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after (Joseph) Smith's death." In other words, polygamous communities should never be referred to as "Mormon" polygamists or “Mormon” fundamentalists.

I was previously in the U.S. Army.  Now I am not.  It would be inaccurate for me to call myself a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

I was previously in the American Fork High School Marching Band.  Now I am not.  It would be inaccurate for me to call myself a member of that band.

And so on.

Now, a person may be a "Mormon" in only a nominal, de minimis kind of way (on the membership rolls only), and in that sense can technically call himself a "Mormon."  But if you are not a member of of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all, I think it would be inaccurate to call yourself a "Mormon."

Quote

In some ways, yes, other ways, no.  Membership is a mutually-agreed-upon kind of thing.  The administration of saving ordinances is a mutually-agreed-upon kind of thing.  

But aside from baptism, which many receive as young children, there are no additional saving ordinances received in the LDS church.

That's not how the Church sees it.  See here:

Quote

In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "salvation" (and "saving").

Quote

That doesn't make them, NOT Mormon. They choose whether they claim the label or not.

Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  The label refers to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Quote

So the records of the Church matter.  The actions of the Church matter.

We also have D&C 132:

This is significant to me.  It speaks both of "revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed" (the prophets and apostles), but also speaks of ordinances needing to be "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise" in order to be efficacious.

I just can't wrap my head around the notion that the role of prophets and apostles, and the priesthood authority they hold and delegate, have no actual meaning.

While you can't wrap your head around it, there are many people who feel exactly that way. Many see church leaders as church managers. Your way is not the only way to view or participate in Mormonism. There are many degrees of engagement and participation and belief and each individual determines their level of Mormonism.

I acknowledge that.

Quote

I'll have to disagree with you there.  Excommunication has real meaning.  "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..."

Just because another person's way doesn't fit yours, or even the "official" version of LDS Mormonism, it doesn't mean the person can't still identify as Mormon.

Again, agree to disagree.

Quote

Well, no.  Not really.  What I "consider {my}self" to be is not determinative in most respects.  I "consider myself" to be the husband to my wife, but only so long as she and the state agree on that point.  Absent their consent, I am not her husband.

But being her husband isn't cultural. It is a legalistic determination, similar to your lawyer example.  But I'm arguing against a legalistic interpretation about what it means to be Mormon because no one and no group control the word. I've read that there are over 500 restoration denominations in the US.  Which ones are allowed to claim themselves as Mormon? Who gets to decide? SLC? No. Each individual group gets to determine if they want to identify as Mormon or not because the word means more than a narrow association with one specific church.

Well, I don't know about that.  I have known people who still consider themselves 

Quote

I "consider myself" a lawyer, but only insofar as I am licensed by the Utah State Bar.  Without licensure, I am not a lawyer in any meaningful sense.

I "consider myself" a member of the Church in good standing, but only insofar as the Church and the Church's records concur with that.  The Church indisputably has veto power over that assertion.

You conflate being Mormon with being a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So does the dictionary.

So does the AP.

So, it seems, to courts of law.  See, e.g., Fuqua v. City of Altus, 2018 WL 1702339 (D. Oklahoma April 6, 2018) ("In August of 2015, plaintiff hired two individuals to serve as the city's Public Works Director and as the Assistant City Manager. Both of the persons hired, like plaintiff, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally called the Mormon Church."); Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 19 Cal.App.5th 525 (2018) ("Arave, who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church or LDS), was then the managing director of Merrill Lynch's Desert Inland Empire Complex..."); Shutlz v. Dixie State University, 2017 WL 1968651 (D. Utah May 11, 2017) ("Nadauld is male and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ('LDS' or 'Mormon')."); State of Idaho v. Freeman, 507 F.Supp. 706 (D. Idaho, 1981) ("NOW claims that the excommunication of Sonia Johnson from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints ('Mormons') bears on the issue of whether a reasonable question is raised.").  There are dozens, even hundreds, of examples of such usage.

Meanwhile, the courts usually specifically differentiate between "Mormons" (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and "fundamentalists."  See, e.g., Brown v. Buhman, 947 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1180-81 (D. Utah December 13, 2013) ("This decision is fraught with both religious and historical significance for the State of Utah because it deals with the question of polygamy, an issue that played a central role in the State's development and that of its dominant religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “LDS Church” or “Mormon Church”). The Brown Plaintiffs are not members of the LDS Church, but do adhere to the beliefs of a fundamentalist church that shares its historical roots with Mormonism."); Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Wisan, 773 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Utah February 24, 2011); Shepp v. Shepp, 588 Pa. 691 (2006).

Quote

I understand that's what it means to you, but your definition of Mormon doesn't apply to everyone else.

I am not using the word ideosyncratically.  You are.

That said, I'm not really bothered by such usage.  

Quote

"Being Mormon" covers a broad spectrum of people, but the concept is not endlessly malleable.  Membership in the Church has real meaning to me.  Being able to attend the temple and hold callings have real meaning to me.  To hold a recommend and attend the temple (surely one of the more distinctive elements of "being Mormon"), I must submit to the authority of the Church.

I'm not saying it shouldn't mean something to you. IMO, your mistake is in assuming that it should have the same meaning to everyone.

In common usage, "Mormon" is a reference to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Recognizing that is not a "mistake."

Quote

So to the extent "being Mormon" involves participating in its sacred ordinances, the Church plainly does play a part in that.

I don't accept your claim that "being Mormon" involves participating in sacred ordinances, for the reasons already stated. I accept that being Mormon means those things to you, but the LDS church doesn't own the word "Mormon" nor does it control an individual's ability to identify themselves as they choose.

Again, I'm not resorting to an ideosyncratic usage of the term.  You are.

I touched on this topic back in 2015 (responding to Carson Calderwood after his excommunication):

Quote

Quote

We have proudly stated that we are Mormon and the church can't take that away from us, even if (now they have) they excommunicate us.  We love the people because they are our people.

I've been trying to sort out the "Mormonism as an ethnicity" thing for a while now. For example, I think I understand some parts of what a "secular Jew" is.  The broader question of "Who is a Jew?" has been explored quite a bit, so much so that there is a Wikipedia article about it, which states that "the question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions."  There is also an interesting Wikipedia article about "Jewish atheism."

Is there a corollary thing for former Latter-day Saints?  Is there such a thing as "atheistic Mormonism" or "secular Mormonism," such that lapsed/nonreligious Latter-day Saints (or former Latter-day Saints) can still describe themselves as being "Mormon" or "LDS" or "Latter-day Saints?" 

There seem to be some fairly large differences between the two situations ("secular" Jews v. "secular" Mormons).  Mormonism is predominantly (perhaps even exclusively) a description of membership in a specific, discrete and insular organization, which membership requires an affirmative act (baptism).  On the other hand, "being" Jewish is something one is born into, with religious observance being immaterial to the question (or optional, sorta - see the "Who is a Jew?" article referenced above), so there does not seem to be any discernible or coherent "gatekeeping function" by which society can readily determine who is, or is not, a "Jew."  It's just too amorphous a word, and encompasses much more than religiosity and religious observance.

But can we say the same of who is, or is not, a "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saint?"  What do we say of a person who claims to be a part of a group when that group has a gatekeeping function?  (My thought: Society generally understands that a person who says "I am a Mormon" is saying he/she is a member of the LDS Church, and hence subject to the LDS Church's "gatekeeping" (which can include excommunication from the Church, and hence from "being" a Latter-day Saint or a Mormon).  This is distinct from society's understanding when a person says "I am a Jew," which is a claim of membership in a much more nebulous group, in which there is no "gatekeeping function.")

A person who claims to be "an American citizen" but lacks actual citizenship is not being accurate.  But what about a person who lacks citizenship and simply claims to be "an American?"  Is there a feasible and discernible distinction between being "an American citizen" and being "an American?" (My thought: The phrase "I am an American" strongly/necessarily implies American citizenship.)

Likewise, is there a feasible and discernible distinction between being "Mormon" (as in a member of the LDS Church) and "Mormon" (as in "having some ancestral/customary/cultural link to the LDS Church and/or its members")?

If an American citizen is stripped of his citizenship, can he still accurately say he is "an American?"  

If a Latter-day Saint is stripped of his membership in the LDS Church, can he still accurately say he is a "Latter-day Saint" or a "Mormon?"

What about a person who identifies himself as a medical doctor, but who has been stripped of his license to practice medicine?  Is he still a "doctor," and can/should he continue to identify himself as such to others?  Or does such an identification carry too much risk for misunderstanding?

What about a person who identifies himself as an employee of Microsoft, but who was fired from Microsoft six months ago?  Can he still describe himself as "an employee of Microsoft?"

I'm still sorting these things out, so any thoughts would be appreciated.  My personal thought is that "being" a Latter-day Saint is a fairly regimented thing.  The LDS Church is a visible, organized entity with actual membership records (unlike, say, Judaism or Buddhism or Islam, etc., all of which are religious groups which lack any authoritative "gatekeeping function").  For me, a person who says "I am a Mormon" or "I am a Latter-day Saint" is claiming membership in that entity.  To reduce these terms to some squishy cultural thing independent of the LDS Church and its authority and ordinances is to rob them of their primary meaning and significance.

I have previously said this: "To be clear, I don't begrudge Dehlin/Kelly in their holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism they can. I'm all for it, in fact. But if and when they go beyond that and discount the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church, I find that problematic."

I still feel pretty much the same way.  

"I am a Mormon" is a shorthand reference for "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I appreciate that the Calderwoods, and perhaps even Dehlin and Kelly, might continue to view "Mormonism" as an ethnicity, or as a sort of cultural/tribal thing.  Honestly, I do not begrudge them that at all.  In fact, I hope their continued identification along these lines may function as a sort of lifeline between them and us.  But Kate Kelly, and John Dehlin, and the Calderwoods, and now the person quoted in the article in the OP, seem to be going beyond merely calling themselves "Mormon" and - as I put it previously - they are "discount{ing} the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church."  This is the part I find problematic.

But in the end, it's probably mostly problematic just for me.  Personally, I value my membership in the Church mostly for its precepts, its saving ordinances, and the community that coheres around those things.  I need to be careful not to hold at arms-length anyone who chooses to reject some of those precepts, who chooses not to honor the covenants associated with those saving ordinances, but who nevertheless values the community and cohesion found amongst us.  We need to be friends, regardless of how "Mormon" we are or claim to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

"I am a Mormon" is a shorthand reference for "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

 

-Smac

No. Not always. Other restoration faiths also refer to themselves as Mormon. The church doesn't own that identity. Does the LDS church own the Mormon trademark? I'm asking because I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure they do not. If they don't own the word they don't get to define how it's used. If someone wants to identify as Mormon, that person is free to do so. I'm not familiar with the legal cases you cited but there are other "Mormons" than just LDS and fundamentalists. For me to accept your argument, I would need to see proof that the LDS church is legally the only group able to 1) define who can and who cannot call themselves Mormon 2) That "Mormon" cannot refer to a heritage, culture, or social group outside of the LDS church.

[Oliblish]

I would think that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon would have claim to the name "Mormon."  

For some reason the church doesn't want any other church to be called Mormon.  But at the same time they don't want to be called Mormon either.  I'm not sure the church can claim control of how the term is used when they are rejecting it at the same time.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Not always.

I acknowledge ideosyncratic usages.  But in the main, the definition is linked to membership in the Church:

• Mirriam-Websters: "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
• Oxford: "A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a religion founded in the US in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr."
• American Heritage: "A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint."
• Cambridge: "a member of a religious group called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which began in the US in 1830"
• MacMillan: "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, formed in the U.S. by Joseph Smith in 1830"
• Vocabulary.com: "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"
• yourdictionary.com: "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormon Church), founded in the U.S. in 1830 by Joseph Smith"

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Other restoration faiths also refer to themselves as Mormon.

The Community of Christ folks apparently do not.  See here ("Members who belong to the LDS Church in Utah often refer to themselves as being Mormons, an early nickname attributed to the followers of Joseph Smith. Members of the CofC prefer not to be called by this title.").

Could you provide some examples of "other restoration faiths" referring to themsevels "as Mormon?"

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church doesn't own that identity. Does the LDS church own the Mormon trademark? I'm asking because I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure they do not. If they don't own the word they don't get to define how it's used. If someone wants to identify as Mormon, that person is free to do so.

You're sort of tilting at windmills here.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not familiar with the legal cases you cited but there are other "Mormons" than just LDS and fundamentalists. For me to accept your argument, I would need to see proof that the LDS church is legally the only group able to 1) define who can and who cannot call themselves Mormon 2) That "Mormon" cannot refer to a heritage, culture, or social group outside of the LDS church.

I'm making a lexical point, not a legal one.

A person who says "I am a Mormon" is representing himself as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

Seems silly to debate what a Mormon is before we listen to what the prophet is revealing to us about the name of the Church and the saints this weekend

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Seems silly to debate what a Mormon is before we listen to what the prophet is revealing to us about the name of the Church and the saints this weekend

Yeah, I think you are right.

HJW, I'll let you have the last word.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Seems silly to debate what a Mormon is before we listen to what the prophet is revealing to us about the name of the Church and the saints this weekend

I know. It's possible that after this weekend, our official stance might be very close to the Community of Christ's, quoted above:

"("Members who belong to the LDS Church in Utah often refer to themselves as being Mormons, an early nickname attributed to the followers of Joseph Smith. Members of the CofC prefer not to be called by this title.")

I hope that isn't where this leads.  

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Seems silly to debate what a Mormon is before we listen to what the prophet is revealing to us about the name of the Church and the saints this weekend

The whole thing is rather silly.  Surely there is more important prophecies and/or things to do than deliberating  about this. Gees...God knows who you are!!

Edited October 2, 2018 by Jeanne

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The whole thing is rather silly.  Surely there is more important prophecies and/or things to do than deliberating  about this. Gees...God knows who you are!!

I don't think it's silly and I don't think it's a minor point.

Smac and others are denying a person's ability to self-identify. If someone wants to identify as Mormon in any of the ways I've mentioned numerous times, then they should have the right. Why? Because no one else has the right to deny them. This whole thing started because people state that a person can't even claim to be Mormon if they don't X, Y, Z. It's arrogant for someone to think they have the right to deny someone from self-identifying as Mormon, whatever that means to them.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's silly and I don't think it's a minor point.

Smac and others are denying a person's ability to self-identify.

I intended to drop out of this discussion, but oh well...

No, I'm not doing that.  As I said (emphases added):

Quote

I appreciate that the Calderwoods, and perhaps even Dehlin and Kelly, might continue to view "Mormonism" as an ethnicity, or as a sort of cultural/tribal thing.  Honestly, I do not begrudge them that at all.  In fact, I hope their continued identification along these lines may function as a sort of lifeline between them and us.  But Kate Kelly, and John Dehlin, and the Calderwoods, and now the person quoted in the article in the OP, seem to be going beyond merely calling themselves "Mormon" and - as I put it previously - they are "discount{ing} the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church."  This is the part I find problematic.

But in the end, it's probably mostly problematic just for me.  Personally, I value my membership in the Church mostly for its precepts, its saving ordinances, and the community that coheres around those things.  I need to be careful not to hold at arms-length anyone who chooses to reject some of those precepts, who chooses not to honor the covenants associated with those saving ordinances, but who nevertheless values the community and cohesion found amongst us.  We need to be friends, regardless of how "Mormon" we are or claim to be.

I have not suggested that former members of the Church cannot continue to identify themselves as "Mormon."  Inaccuracy notwithstanding, I do not begrudge them that.

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone wants to identify as Mormon in any of the ways I've mentioned numerous times, then they should have the right. Why? Because no one else has the right to deny them. This whole thing started because people state that a person can't even claim to be Mormon if they don't X, Y, Z. It's arrogant for someone to think they have the right to deny someone from self-identifying as Mormon, whatever that means to them.

Again, you're tilting at windmills.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I intended to drop out of this discussion, but oh well...

No, I'm not doing that.  As I said (emphases added):

I have not suggested that former members of the Church cannot continue to identify themselves as "Mormon."  Inaccuracy notwithstanding, I do not begrudge them that.

Again, you're tilting at windmills.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm confused. You are citing legal cases & providing definitions of what a Mormon is. You have taken the very narrow stance that Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Therefore, non LDS must not be Mormons and therefore shouldn't identify as Mormon. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm confused. You are citing legal cases & providing definitions of what a Mormon is.

Yes.

Quote

You have taken the very narrow stance that Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Yes.  But I have also said, a couple of times, that I do not begrudge former members continuing to identify as "Mormon."

Quote

Therefore, non LDS must not be Mormons and therefore shouldn't identify as Mormon. 

No, that is not my position.  For the third time: "To be clear, I don't begrudge Dehlin/Kelly in their holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism they can. I'm all for it, in fact. But if and when they go beyond that and discount the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church, I find that problematic."

And this (also for the third time): "I appreciate that the Calderwoods, and perhaps even Dehlin and Kelly, might continue to view 'Mormonism' as an ethnicity, or as a sort of cultural/tribal thing.  Honestly, I do not begrudge them that at all.  In fact, I hope their continued identification along these lines may function as a sort of lifeline between them and us."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's silly and I don't think it's a minor point.

Smac and others are denying a person's ability to self-identify. If someone wants to identify as Mormon in any of the ways I've mentioned numerous times, then they should have the right. Why? Because no one else has the right to deny them. This whole thing started because people state that a person can't even claim to be Mormon if they don't X, Y, Z. It's arrogant for someone to think they have the right to deny someone from self-identifying as Mormon, whatever that means to them.

Perhaps I misunderstood as I agree with you in part.  I am an will always be an ex mormon...I was a mormon...and I agree that if that is what you want to call yourself what the heck? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 Does the LDS church own the Mormon trademark? I'm asking because I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure they do not.

In some areas, yes, others not it would seem just from a look at all the various trademarks including the word:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4805:gjzx4e.1.1

(you need to do your own search)

Edited October 2, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Perhaps I misunderstood as I agree with you in part.  I am an will always be an ex mormon...I was a mormon...and I agree that if that is what you want to call yourself what the heck? 

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.