Hamblin's Creed
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:13 am
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.
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
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.
Bill Hamblin wrote: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