Hamblin's Creed

[_Cicero]

On a recent thread, I took issue with what I called a "Manichean" view of Mormon identity (http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25104&start=21). In that thread, I was more focused on exmormon critics of John Dehlin and other so-called unorthodox members that choose to continue to affiliate themselves with the Church in some manner and to call themselves Mormons. I really dislike when such critics imply that anyone who chooses to affiliate with the Church after learning about "troubling" issues is either stupid or dishonest. John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks get at least as much criticism from the exmormon community (just look at RFM) as they do from people like Droopy.

Apologists, however, in their never-ending quest to identify the wolves in sheep's clothing, separate the wheat from the tares, spit out the lukewarm (etc., etc . . .) are often guilty of the same form of Manichean thinking. As an example, Bill Hamblin just today came up with a list of what he considers the bare minimum set of "ideas one must affirm to be considered a Mormon in anything more than name only." According to Bill, if you cannot state that you believe in the four ideas below, it is "irrational" for you to call yourself a Mormon.

1- There is a God.

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.

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.)

4- Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet. (To distinguish from other Mormon-related churches and movements.)

Unfreakinbelievable . . . I would never have the arrogance to take it upon myself to come up with a list like this, or to ever tell someone else that they are "irrational" for calling themselves a Mormon.

Here is the link to the full blog post: http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/minimal-beliefs-to-be-considered-a-mormon/#comments

[_Kishkumen]

He can make up all the stupid lists he likes. He has no authority to enforce them. So let him bluster in the corner about his criteria for what makes a "real Mormon."

As far as I am aware, this is what makes a person a member of the LDS Church:

1. You were baptized.
2. You have not resigned.
3. You have not been excommunicated.

[_Darth J]

I think that James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries should compose a four-part catechism for what defines a Christian. Anyone who does not fully comply with those four things would by definition not be a Christian.

I'm sure that Bill Hamblin would agree with James White's mandate to define for the world what a real Christian is.

[_Stormy Waters]

He can make up all the stupid lists he likes. He has no authority to enforce them. So let him bluster in the corner about his criteria for what makes a "real Mormon."

As far as I am aware, this is what makes a person a member of the LDS Church:

1. You were baptized.
2. You have not resigned.
3. You have not been excommunicated.

According to Hamblins logic the church can claim you as a member, but you may not be able to claim yourself as one. I'd like to see the membership numbers using his criteria.

[_Darth J]

He can make up all the stupid lists he likes. He has no authority to enforce them. So let him bluster in the corner about his criteria for what makes a "real Mormon."

As far as I am aware, this is what makes a person a member of the LDS Church:

1. You were baptized.
2. You have not resigned.
3. You have not been excommunicated.

According to Hamblins logic the church can claim you as a member, but you may not be able to claim yourself as one. I'd like to see the membership numbers using his criteria.

It's curious that Hamblin is tacitly admitting that the Church is disingenuous about its claimed number of adherents.

[_sock puppet]

Is it just me, or is this a great thread?

[_Fence Sitter]

I notice the practice of loving your fellow man didn't crack the top four.

[_Darth J]

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/minimal-beliefs-to-be-considered-a-mormon/#comment-372

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

August 10, 2012 at 7:58 pm

Darth J says:

That’s some solid reasoning, Brother Hamblin. Let me try:

Amid the swirling controversies associated with the Church, a fundamental question emerges: Who should be considered a Christian, and why? I believe that there are at least a minimum of four ideas one must affirm to be considered a Christian in anything more than name only (there may be more).

1- There is a Trinity.

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, who saves us by grace alone.

3- There is a priesthood of believers. There is no formal priesthood structure or authority.

4- The Bible alone is scripture

This is my minimal list. There may well be other ideas and practices that should be included as well. But I believe that if one does not minimally accept these four ideas, it is simply irrational to claim to be a Christian. And in my experience, most Mormons cannot truthfully affirm these four ideas, and are therefore at least minimally equivocating when they call themselves Christians.

[_Darth J]

I notice the practice of loving your fellow man didn't even cross his mind.

Hope you don't mind my edit, Fence Sitter.

[Guest]

-