My Response to the Hamblin Creed

[_sethpayne]

Bill's short post last week caused me to ramble a bit .....

I have to admit, I feel better having gotten this off my chest:

http://www.sethpayne.com/?p=1112

:)

[_Kishkumen]

Well done, sethpayne.

I was a little taken aback by your candor and the exact nature of your beliefs and doubts.

What you have said, particularly at the beginning and the end, is very important.

I like seeing early Mormonism as steering clear of creeds. There is historical support for this, and I don't see why anyone is eager to shackle themselves with a new catechism.

But then, I'm not Bill Hamblin.

[_sethpayne]

Well done, sethpayne.

I was a little taken aback by your candor and the exact nature of your beliefs and doubts.

What you have said, particularly at the beginning and the end, is very important.

I like seeing early Mormonism as steering clear of creeds. There is historical support for this, and I don't see why anyone is eager to shackle themselves with a new catechism.

But then, I'm not Bill Hamblin.

Thanks Kish.

Fortunately I'm in a situation where I can be pretty candid about my doubts/hopes/beliefs. The bottom line is that I am a Mormon because I choose to be. Mormonism provides a spiritual home for me, one which encourages me to live a life in pursuit of "the good" then nothing else matters.

There are many things I don't know but one thing I know for certain -- along with all other living breathing human beings -- is that this mortal life (whether there is another life beyond is irrelevant) is full of suffering. I feel a moral obligation to alleviate suffering and provide comfort to those who struggle. Why waste so much time on questions that do nothing to address the very real problems of the here and now?

In the end what I have found is that I am the one being comforted and supported far more often than I provide comfort.

[_the narrator]

Bill’s whole claim that he is simply “trying to create an intellectually coherent meaning for the term Mormon [where] The alternative is to say that Mormon can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, with the result that any discussion of what Mormonism means becomes a morass of incoherent assertions” is based on a confused understanding of how language works–as if meaningful language necessitated a logical framework with precise definitions. Wittgenstein (later) rejected this Russellian conception of language, and rightly did so because it simply isn’t how language works.

Our language wasn’t constructed by a council of persons defining what words meant prior to their use. Far from it, our language since the beginning of it has been in constant fluctuation, variance, increase, and loss. Words are constantly changing meaning, having new definitions constructed, and created ex nihilo. And far from Bill’s nightmares of mass hysteria and confusion, we generally get along just fine without everybody walking around with dictionaries to make sure words are being used with precision. When someone uses a word with a use we don’t grasp, we observe and ask. Sometimes we (society, without any rules on how it is done) embrace this new use, sometimes the person decides the word was misused. Sometimes it’s both.

My wife calls all sodas “coke.” I just have to observe and ask what she means by it. Problem solved.

But let’s not kid ourselves. Bill’s concern isn’t protecting the good citizens of this country from the perils of linguistic anarchy. It’s about creating the Other. Bill thrives off envisioning himself as the defender of Mormonism (TM) and must therefore constantly have in his mind enemies that he is defending Mormonism (TM) from. This is why he throws around the term “apostate” as if he were a hip pre-teen tossing around new slang. His attempt to establish what the real definition of Mormon (TM) is just another attempt to draw a boundary delineating those he is defending apart from his ever newly constructed and fantastical enemies.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well said!!!

[_Sethbag]

I still think you guys are in the minority here. I think the overwhelming majority of TBMs (those most likely to describe themselves as Mormon) would assume that that label implied some things about themselves.

Imagine this conversation.

Steve: So, are you religious?
Peter: I'm Mormon.
Steve: So, like, you believe in God?
Peter: Uh, yeah, I'm Mormon.
Steve: Ok, and you believe in Jesus?
Peter: Yeah dude, I'm Mormon.
Steve: And you believe that Joseph Smith talked with God and Jesus, and was a real Prophet and all that?
Peter: Dude, what the fetch? I'm Mormon for Gosh's sake! Of course I believe all that. What do you think being Mormon means?

I think this imagined conversation illustrates what the critical mass of Mormon believers think the word connotes. My subjective impression is that most of the people who are butthurt about Hamblin's mini-creed or whatever you want to call it are those living on or beyond the fringe of Mormonism, who reject the term's implications for their own reasons (eg: the desire not to be excluded).

I'm willing to be wrong here. Can anyone point me to a Chapel Mormon, or even Mopologist who thinks that "Mormon" doesn't imply at least those things Hamblin listed, if not much more?

I have to agree with Hamblin here: for "Mormon" to make any kind of sense as a label, it needs to convey some informational content. It needs to mean something. I agree that it is (among the primary population of users of the term) something more than "My name has at one time entered the Mormon Church's records, and I have not been excommunicated or resigned."

[_sethpayne]

I still think you guys are in the minority here. I think the overwhelming majority of TBMs (those most likely to describe themselves as Mormon) would assume that that label implied some things about themselves.

Imagine this conversation.

Steve: So, are you religious?
Peter: I'm Mormon.
Steve: So, like, you believe in God?
Peter: Uh, yeah, I'm Mormon.
Steve: Ok, and you believe in Jesus?
Peter: Yeah dude, I'm Mormon.
Steve: And you believe that Joseph Smith talked with God and Jesus, and was a real Prophet and all that?
Peter: Dude, what the fetch? I'm Mormon for Gosh's sake! Of course I believe all that. What do you think being Mormon means?

I think this imagined conversation illustrates what the critical mass of Mormon believers think the word connotes. My subjective impression is that most of the people who are butthurt about Hamblin's mini-creed or whatever you want to call it are those living on or beyond the fringe of Mormonism, who reject the term's implications for their own reasons.

I'm willing to be wrong here. Can anyone point me to a Chapel Mormon, or even Mopologist who thinks that "Mormon" doesn't imply at least those things Hamblin listed, if not much more?

I have to agree with Hamblin here: for "Mormon" to make any kind of sense as a label, it needs to convey some informational content. It needs to mean something. I agree that it is (among the primary population of users of the term) something more than "My name has at one time entered the Mormon Church's records, and I have not been excommunicated or resigned."

I still think you guys are in the minority here. I think the overwhelming majority of TBMs (those most likely to describe themselves as Mormon) would assume that that label implied some things about themselves.

Imagine this conversation.

Steve: So, are you religious?
Peter: I'm Mormon.
Steve: So, like, you believe in God?
Peter: Uh, yeah, I'm Mormon.
Steve: Ok, and you believe in Jesus?
Peter: Yeah dude, I'm Mormon.
Steve: And you believe that Joseph Smith talked with God and Jesus, and was a real Prophet and all that?
Peter: Dude, what the fetch? I'm Mormon for Gosh's sake! Of course I believe all that. What do you think being Mormon means?

I think this imagined conversation illustrates what the critical mass of Mormon believers think the word connotes.

I have to agree with Hamblin here: for "Mormon" to make any kind of sense as a label, it needs to convey some informational content. It needs to mean something. I really think that needs to be something more than "My name has at one time entered the Mormon Church's records, and I have not been excommunicated or resigned."

Hi Seth,

When I say to people that I am a "Liberal Mormon" they tend to get it. Being Mormon is about much more than belief -- although I do agree with you that the term "Mormon" without qualifiers such as "liberal' or "cultural" or "jack" implies a certain set of beliefs.

Seth

(is my above post chiastic???)

A
-- senseless rambling
A

Yep! Who knew I could write in the style of archaic hebrew poetry?? :)

[_Sethbag]

Seth, yeah dude, your chiastic posts prove that you must be true. How could you have known?!?

I have no problem with the use of modifiers like "liberal" in front of Mormon changing the implications. After all, that's what modifiers are for. But to be effective, the modifier itself has to connote something, and then the original word being modified has to connote something as well. There has to be information conveyed about the original meaning, and the modifications to it that you are claiming in your description of yourself.

I assume that when you tell people you are a "liberal Mormon" you probably don't mean the following:

I am a liberal person whose name has at one time been on the records of the Mormon church, who has not yet been excommunicated or resigned.

You probably also don't mean:

I am a liberal person who grew up in the Mormon cultural milieu, but now no longer believe in God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I still think you guys are in the minority here. I think the overwhelming majority of TBMs (those most likely to describe themselves as Mormon) would assume that that label implied some things about themselves.

Sethbag,

I'm of two minds on this kind of stuff.

Mostly, I'm 100% in agreement with you. The vast majority of the rank and file Mormons, including the GAs, agree with you. Being a Mormon means believing certain things. If anything Bill Hamblin's list is too minimalist.

But part of me wants theological liberal revisionists to go to town with this kind of stuff. In some ways I sincerely hope they make serious inroads in making being Mormon completely meaningless. This has already been tried in tons of Christian denominations. The historical data from these escapades is always the same: contributions go down, members leave, and the denomination dies. I can't think of a single exception to this rule. The more being Mormon becomes meaningless and involves believing in nothing, the easier it is to get my wife to leave in the future.

So intellectually, I agree with you. For cynical and selfish reasons, I'm cheering on the revisionists.

[_sethpayne]

Seth, yeah dude, your chiastic posts prove that you must be true. How could you have known?!?

I have no problem with the use of modifiers like "liberal" in front of Mormon changing the implications. After all, that's what modifiers are for. But to be effective, the modifier itself has to connote something, and then the original word being modified has to connote something as well. There has to be information conveyed about the original meaning, and the modifications to it that you are claiming in your description of yourself.

I assume that when you tell people you are a "liberal Mormon" you probably don't mean the following:

I am a liberal person whose name has at one time been on the records of the Mormon church, who has not yet been excommunicated or resigned.

You probably also don't mean:

I am a liberal person who grew up in the Mormon cultural milieu, but now no longer believe in God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith.

Good points, Seth.

Perhaps the best description would be:

"I am a Mormon who believes in God and finds value in the teachings of Mormonism but my Mormon-specific beliefs should be classified as non-literal."

That would be tough to fit on a business card....

I'm going to have to think on this a bit more.