I am going to revisit Hamblin's list to illustrate some of the reasons why I think it is problematic:
Bill Hamblin wrote:1- There is a God.
While you may think this is a no-brainer, I would guess that there are Mormon Transhumanists who might look upon the God concept as something humankind is reaching for. It is a foretaste of an evolutionary future as yet unrealized. Such Mormon Transhumanists would act as though such a being does exist for all intents and purposes, because they believe in actively moving toward that ideal. The details of Mormon Transhumanism are too involved to get into here, but I would wager that such a person might be one of the best members of the LDS Church you could ever hope to meet, but s/he is excluded if we read Hamblin a certain way.
Bill Hamblin wrote:2- Jesus is the Christ, meaning not that he was a great teacher, but that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, who was resurrected from the dead.
I think hoping that Jesus Christ is Son of God and Savior makes Mormonism a lot more comfortable a choice of communities if you want to attend meetings regularly. That said, I have seen a few interesting and many stupid explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ. In the history of Christianity, one finds many theologies and christologies. Simply put, I think it is legitimate to wonder and doubt about Jesus Christ. I would rather sit in the pews with someone who hopes the atonement is real and lives an upright life, than subject myself to a person who has a complete conviction that it is real, but is a predatory pedophile coming after my kids. The mistake that people make with belief is similar to the one that they make with beauty: the beautiful person is sometimes given the benefit of the doubt long after he or she has abused it thoroughly.
Why should I or anyone else be so dense as to follow suit?
And yet so many people do.
Bill Hamblin wrote:3- Joseph Smith is a true prophet, meaning not that he thought he was a prophet, or that other thought he was a prophet, but that he actually saw God, received authentic revelation from God, and received divine authorization to restore the Church. (To me this implies, as a corollary, belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although some have argued that a fictional Book of Mormon could be scripture, the problem is that if Joseph himself wrote a fictional Book of Mormon, either in a delusional state or as a knowing fraud, or by plagiarizing some other book, it is logically impossible that he was an authentic prophet.)
Here is where I start to have bigger problems with Hamblin's list. I think it is important to respect the community's founding figure, if one wants to be a member of the community. Joseph Smith gives people a great deal to work through in terms of problematic material, if one hopes to sustain that respect. Clearly, the guy was no Ghandi. On the other hand, he didn't and doesn't have to be. Being Mormon is much more comfortable, if you want to participate in meetings regularly, if you see in the complicated picture of Joseph's life something bigger than himself, something that was motivated by the Divine.
When it comes down to actually "seeing" God, I have no idea. I don't think the man lied about it. Did he receive authentic revelation? As opposed to what? I would say that one is more in tune with the community by hoping or seeing evidence of a divine inspiration in Joseph Smith's works, overall.
What is a complete howler is Hamblin's ad hoc definition of what makes an "authentic" prophet. Again, the red flag should pop up once you see the word "authentic," which is nothing more or less than a rhetorical sledge hammer. It is empty of any content beyond saying, "what I think is right, real, and what you should accede to and follow." The Mormon definition of prophet is essentially Joseph Smith's own creation. If that came from divine revelation, then it is Joseph's interpretation of his interaction with God on that point. At no point before Mormonism would you ever find a "prophet who holds all the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood and exercises them," because there was no such thing.
And here Hamblin is saying that his foolproof test for determining who is an "authentic" prophet is whether the Book of Mormon events actually occurred in ancient America. Says who?
Says Bill Hamblin. Why? Because many liberal Mormons either do not accept that it is ancient in that sense, or they don't have a firm conviction that it is. One can say that they do not believe Joseph Smith is a real prophet, if they do not believe the Book of Mormon is ancient.
By Bill Hamblin's standard, we would also have to conclude that the authors of many Biblical books were also not prophets or inspired authors because they wrote books, like Daniel and Job, that are set in the past, but were obviously not written at the time of the chronological setting of the book. Furthermore, they get plenty of historical details wrong, leading to the conclusion that, in a secular sense, one might call these works historical fiction.
Where does that leave the entire foundation of Christianity?
To address this problem, Hamblin and others must insist that all of these Biblical works were written in their fictional setting by the authors everyone had traditionally credited to them before the advent of Higher Criticism, etc.
Another, more economical and sensible approach is to accept that prophets can write pseudepigraphic works that are scripture.
If this is too much of a miracle for you to buy into, then maybe you shouldn't believe in the resurrection either.
Bill Hamblin wrote:4- Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet. (To distinguish from other Mormon-related churches and movements.)
Why to distinguish from other Mormon-related Churches? Do I have to call every other prophet false in order to call Monson a prophet? OK, I get that my community has a leader, and that I follow this leader instead of hanging on every word of President Veazey, but must I think that Veazey is a false prophet to do so? I don't think so. This kind of thinking is an artifact of the schismatic period of Mormon history from Nauvoo through the balance of the 19th century. There is very little reason to behave or think this way now. I am not a member of the Reorganization because they did not keep the endowment. I respect their faith; I think they teach truth; and I don't have to say "my prophet is truer than your prophet."
But again, what does this term prophet mean? This brings up the whole issue of the succession crisis, and the messy process through which Brigham Young muscled his way into the lead of a large faction of Mormons that ultimately headed West. To say that it was obvious at the time that Brigham was the guy is, I think, something only a person invested in a narrow reading of history would claim. Joseph Smith never designated Brigham Young as his one successor during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Brigham clearly did not see himself as such, and even held open the possibility that one of Joseph's sons would take up the leadership of the Church.
So, is it really all so easy? Does one have to say, "yes, I think that Thomas Monson is the only true prophet on the earth, and that he is prophet in precisely the same sense as Joseph Smith was," in order to be a Mormon?
I think not.
Now, what I do think is true is that one probably will have more troubles obtaining a temple recommend if one is not comfortable answering the questions posed in the recommend interview forthrightly and with some conviction.
But that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
