Hamblin's Creed

[_Drifting]

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 Salt Lake City.

No. I'm saying True Blelieving Mormons yield control of the term Mormon, and of their lives, to a person(s) whom they believe has been appointed by God. If you don't sustain them, and mean it, you are saying you either don't believe that God appointed them (in which case the Church isn't true) or that you don't agree with God's decision. In both cases you can hardly be classed as a believing Mormon. Surely?

Let's try a hypothetical.

Which of the following people should be classed as Mormons:

A. A non baptised believer of Mormonism.
B. Baptised and attends but doesn't believe in any of it.
C. Baptised, attends believes it all but doesn't sustain the leadership.
D. Baptised, holds a recommend, sustains, the whole shooting match.
E. A second annointed that neither sustains nor attends nor lives the doctrines of the Church.

P.S. when I use the term 'Mormon' I'm referring to an adherent of a religious belief rather than using it as a cultural label.

[_Drifting]

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

I identify as Brad Pitt, doesn't mean I am though!

Actually this raises an interesting point.
Who gets to determine what classifies as a person being Mormon; the person themselves or the organization from which stems the classificational term?

[_Kishkumen]

No. I'm saying True Blelieving Mormons yield control of the term Mormon, and of their lives, to a person(s) whom they believe has been appointed by God.

So, people who are assigned a polemical label must believe exactly what you and some apologists agree they have to believe in order to be Mormons.

This is silly.

Why is there even a TBM label if there are not obviously lots of other kinds of Mormons?

In both cases you can hardly be classed as a believing Mormon. Surely?

You are shifting the goal posts. The discussion was about Mormon identity, not whether the person is a TBM, which, by the way, is a term that has as much or as little validity as the concepts of Chapel and Internet Mormons.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Which of the following people should be classed as Mormons:

A. A non baptised believer of Mormonism.
B. Baptised and attends but doesn't believe in any of it.
C. Baptised, attends believes it all but doesn't sustain the leadership.
D. Baptised, holds a recommend, sustains, the whole shooting match.
E. A second annointed that neither sustains nor attends nor lives the doctrines of the Church.

All of the above and many more.

[_Kishkumen]

I identify as Brad Pitt, doesn't mean I am though!

You do realize, of course, that the identity of a particular person is not interchangeable with a group category, logically speaking, yes? No?

Who gets to determine what classifies as a person being Mormon; the person themselves or the organization from which stems the classificational term?

The LDS Church does not in reality control the term Mormon.

It claims it does. That doesn't make its claim true.

[_Drifting]

No. I'm saying True Blelieving Mormons yield control of the term Mormon, and of their lives, to a person(s) whom they believe has been appointed by God.

So, people who are assigned a polemical label must believe exactly what you and some apologists agree they have to believe in order to be Mormons.

This is silly.

Why is there even a TBM label if there are not obviously lots of other kinds of Mormons?

In both cases you can hardly be classed as a believing Mormon. Surely?

You are shifting the goal posts. The discussion was about Mormon identity, not whether the person is a TBM, which, by the way, is a term that has as much or as little validity as the concepts of Chapel and Internet Mormons.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Which of the following people should be classed as Mormons:

A. A non baptised believer of Mormonism.
B. Baptised and attends but doesn't believe in any of it.
C. Baptised, attends believes it all but doesn't sustain the leadership.
D. Baptised, holds a recommend, sustains, the whole shooting match.
E. A second annointed that neither sustains nor attends nor lives the doctrines of the Church.

All of the above and many more.

Okay, using your logic I can now identify myself as:
Catholic, Protestant, Buddist, Jewish and atheist all at the same time.
Note: I'm only Jewish on Thursdays.

[_Blixa]

The LDS Church does not in reality control the term Mormon.

It claims it does. That doesn't make its claim true.

Exactly.

[_lulu]

Okay, using your logic I can now identify myself as:
Catholic, Protestant, Buddist, Jewish and atheist all at the same time.
Note: I'm only Jewish on Thursdays.

Yep.

http://www.nmjhs.org/crypto-jews.html

[_Kishkumen]

Okay, using your logic I can now identify myself as:
Catholic, Protestant, Buddist, Jewish and atheist all at the same time.
Note: I'm only Jewish on Thursdays.

Knock yourself out.

I won't get upset about it. And I won't blog on it either.

[_Drifting]

Okay, using your logic I can now identify myself as:
Catholic, Protestant, Buddist, Jewish and atheist all at the same time.
Note: I'm only Jewish on Thursdays.

Knock yourself out.

I won't get upset about it. And I won't blog on it either.

But, by your logic on who can class themselves as Mormon, you agree I am just as entitled to do so?

[_lulu]

Drifting, by your logic who can class themselves as Jewish in New Mexico?

By your logic, who can class themselves as Roman Catholic in New Mexico?

Who gets to decide?

Why?