Hamblin's Creed

[_Drifting]

Are you still Mormon if you don't hold a Temple Recommend?
Are you still Mormon if you don't pay tithing?
Are you still Mormon if you don't have a testimony?

Obviously yes.

These are stupid questions.

Then at what point does one stop being a Mormon, assuming the start point is Baptism?

[_Kishkumen]

Then at what point does one stop being a Mormon, assuming the start point is Baptism?

Excommunication, resignation, or simply saying, "I am not Mormon."

Easy.

[_Blixa]

Then at what point does one stop being a Mormon, assuming the start point is Baptism?

Excommunication, resignation, or simply saying, "I am not Mormon."

Easy.

Even the first two don't invalidate what is by this time in history an ethnic identity.

[Guest]

Then at what point does one stop being a Mormon, assuming the start point is Baptism?

Excommunication, resignation, or simply saying, "I am not Mormon."

Easy.

Is that though not an underlying point that Hamblin is making?
That the Church maintains there are 14 million Mormons whereas, in reality, when one starts to look at what it takes to be classed as a Mormon a majority of this number probably class themselves as 'not a Mormon'.

It seems fair to suggest that, if you are not willing to sustain Thomas S. Monson as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and mean it (City Creek included), then perhaps you shouldn't be classed as a Mormon.

If you are not prepared to pay tithing, or attend Church, or uphold and believe in all of the doctrines then you are, perhaps, something less than a Mormon. A half Mormon, a Semi Mormon, a Part Mormon.

One Bishop of mine said that you can't be picking and choosing what you will and will not believe about the Church and it's doctrine. You're either in all the way or you're not in at all.

I think having a Temple Recommend (legitimately) is the single determining factor of what constitutes being a Mormon. If you're not prepared to meet, or work hard towards meeting, the criteria for a Recommend, then you really aren't trying to be a Mormon.

[_Kishkumen]

Even the first two don't invalidate what is by this time in history an ethnic identity.

Or at the very least, a "People," as Terryl Givens has argued.

Good point, Blixa.

[_Kishkumen]

It seems fair to suggest that, if you are not willing to sustain Thomas S. Monson as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and mean it, then perhaps you shouldn't be classed as a Mormon.

That's ridiculous.

If you are not prepared to pay tithing, or attend Church, or uphold and believe in all of the doctrines then you are, perhaps, something less than a Mormon. A half Mormon, a Semi Mormon, a Part Mormon.

Maybe in your estimation. Mormon identity is not reducible to such things.

One Bishop of mine said that you can't be picking and choosing what you will and will not believe about the Church and it's doctrine. You're either in all the way or you're not in at all.

And yet everyone does. Clearly this kind of "tough guy" talk isn't worth spit.

I think having a Temple Recommend (legitimately) is the single determining factor of what constitutes being a Mormon. If you're not prepared to meet, or work hard towards meeting, the criteria for a Recommend, then you really aren't trying to be a Mormon.

In my mind this is something like saying that unless one belongs to Opus Dei, one is not Catholic. Or, at least it should be.

This is the bizarrest conversation. Maybe being an ex-Mormon is, for some at least, just the process of implicitly buying into negative stereotypes promulgated by fundamentalist wackos.

[Guest]

Kish, how can you be classed as a Mormon and not sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator?

Opus Dei membership and Temple Recommend holding is hardly comparable. Opus Dei membership and Second Annointee's is perhaps comparable though.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, unless I live up to Droopy's idea of what a "real Mormon" is, then I shouldn't go to church. Neither should any other person who doesn't adhere to Droopyism.

[_Blixa]

Well, Drifting, I identify as a Mormon and I think that's between me and Joseph Smith.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, how can you be classed as a Mormon and not sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator?

That is such an incredibly absurd question that one wonders how you can pose it in seriousness.

So, basically you are telling me that you yield control of the term Mormon to a bunch of apologists, lawyers, and bureaucrats in SLC.

What on earth does their opinion have to do with reality?

Why would you want to buy into someone else's powerplay propaganda?

I find this all so confusing.

Opus Dei membership and Temple Recommend holding is hardly comparable. Opus Dei membership and Second Annointee's is perhaps comparable though.

No it isn't. As far as I am aware, no one voluntarily approaches the stake president, after feeling a spiritual call to the second anointing, and enters a request to receive it. Like the endowment, Opus Dei membership is voluntary. It does not come as a one-sided call from religious authorities.