Need help: I don't know if I'm a "Mormon" or not.

[_Livingstone22]

Okay, so I have just joined this discussion group, and I figured who else better to discuss my personal problems than with strangers on the internet? Here is my problem: should I, with my current beliefs, define myself as "Mormon."

I was convert a few years ago, but I guess I never accepted that the LDS church was "the one and only true church," and in fact, I'm not sure it is. I don't actually believe that God would have a particular organization to be "His church" at all. I don't believe that was ever said in the Bible. But I also have doubts about the existence of God and what His nature really is. I am an Agnostic in the philosophical sense*. I do not follow all the church rules, nor believe every single one of them are good. I do not believe Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet, but because such things cannot be proved, I don't have a particular testimony that he isn't. I run my life the best way I can, and do what makes me happy and what will be the best for myself and other people. I drink tea and coffee--but not alcohol or smoke. If I do go to church on Sunday, I don't always go to the LDS church. I do believe in Jesus and God, but not nessecerly the divinity of the LDS church. I hold official church membership, but only the Aaronic priesthood, never served a mission, don't take the sacrament or a calling. I sometimes give a minimal tithing (as an "anonymous offering"). But I have no problem going to church and participating in the activities. I don't have a testimony that the LDS church is true, but I don't have a testimony that it is false either. I am, though, open to and appreciate some of the unique doctrines (like spiritual bodies/spirit matter, possibility of Jesus being married [Brigham Young], multiple hierarchy of gods, premortal existence, eternal marriage, polygamy as an option but not requirement for salvation, the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, etc.), but not others (Book of Mormon as historical, three kingdoms of Heaven, extreme "worthiness" standards, missionary program, etc.)

Okay, here is the problem: I live in Utah county, and I keep getting asked if I'm "Mormon." If I say yes, people expect certain things out of me, if I say no, people invite me to LDS church and tell me about their beliefs...I'm afraid they will invite me to meet the missionaries. I once was asked if I was a "cultural Mormon," but I didn't think I fit into that category because I am rather culturally inept to what most church members have experienced (hey what's "scripture mastery" again?). The question is what makes a "Mormon" a "Mormon?" It seems to me that more-so than any other church I've been involved with, LDS usually define themselves so due more to being officially on the rolls than to what they actually believe or practice. What exactly am I? What should I tell people.

*Agnostic in the philosophical sense means that I don't think that the existence of God/His will/His nature can be proven or known (in this life at least). This is apart from "believing" or "hoping." Agnostic, in its general meaning usually carries a connotation of someone who doesn't know or care about God.

[_Mercury]

Dude, OK, first off get out of Utah county. If your there for school there are better opportunities elsewhere.

[_DonBradley]

I voted "yes," but I think the real question is not how anyone else sees you, but how you see yourself. Your vote is the crucial one, and, really, the only one that matters. It sounds like you believe in the divine inspiration of Mormonism, at least in many ways; and you practice the faith and affiliate with it. These things in themselves suggest that you self-identify as a Mormon. But maybe not.

What do you say to yourself? If you simply ignore others' judgments, what is yours--do you see yourself a Mormon? Do you want to be a Mormon? If you want to self-identify as a Mormon and choose to do so, you are a Mormon. No one else can decide otherwise. While ecclesiastical communities have the power to decide whom they will accept as a member, they do not have the power to decide who will adopt the faith tradition they represent, nor the power to define others' identities for them. (Though, actually, the church does accept you as a member, so it would appear that, for whatever it's worth, they do define you as Mormon.)

by the way, I just left Utah County for the true Zion--Salt Lake City! It's sooooooo much better up here! You should come up.

Best of luck in your personal quest,

Don

[_msnobody]

Popular opinion seems to say you're an agnostic Mormon. Would this make him a NOM? In case you're not familiar with the term http://www.newordermormon.org/ <<< There is a link.

[_moksha]

I think you need to enlarge the poll to include various types of Mormons. Pick a name for the type of Mormon you find yourself being and include it on the poll. I will then vote for it. Best wishes.

Oh, by the way, I always think self definition is best. It is your own spiritual pathway, is it not?

[_The Nehor]

I would think the only people who have a say in that would be God and you...certainly not random people on a message board.

[_JAK]

Livingstone22 stated:
I am an Agnostic in the philosophical sense*.

Later stated:
Livingstone22:
I do believe in Jesus and God.

So you see the contradiction? If not, you need to consult reliable definition for “agnostic.”

My vote was for “confused.”

Later stated:
Livingstone22:
I don't have a testimony that the LDS church is true, but I don't have a testimony that it is false either...

The burden of proof always lies with the one (or those) who make assertions. You have NO RESPONSIBILITY to attempt to prove a negative. Generally, a negative is not proved. Hence, failure of an affirmative claim to prove that claim reliable, one should disregard the claim.

Later stated:
Livingstone22:
I am, though, open to and appreciate some of the unique doctrines...

Why? All religious doctrines are claimed to be “unique.” They are not. It’s a claim absent evidence. If there were actually evidence for a doctrine, it would be open to dissection and scrutiny. Religious doctrines are not open for scrutiny and objective analysis. Hence, they should be regarded with great skepticism.

Later stated:
Livingstone22:
The question is what makes a "Mormon" a "Mormon?"

Well, just as there are soft Methodists there are also soft Mormons. There are soft Roman Catholics and virtually any other denomination which you could name. By “soft,” I mean they have some degree of skepticism about specific doctrines which their group espouses. You might regard yourself as a soft Mormon. There are no doubt soft Muslims and soft Hindus as well.

That depends largely on the degree to which you are free to examine with objectivity information/evidence surrounding the evolution of your religion and of religion in general.

You’re confused (at least in this statement) in that you claim to believe absolutes while at the same time, you consider that you don’t.

There are soft agnostics too. They don’t subscribe to any religious doctrine and find no evidence for any claimed God (or previously claimed gods). Look up agnostic.

JAK

[_Livingstone22]

Livingstone22 stated:
I am an Agnostic in the philosophical sense*.

Later stated:
Livingstone22:
I do believe in Jesus and God.

So you see the contradiction? If not, you need to consult reliable definition for “agnostic.”

My vote was for “confused.”

There are soft agnostics too. They don’t subscribe to any religious doctrine and find no evidence for any claimed God (or previously claimed gods). Look up agnostic.

JAK

You just bypassed that I said I was an Agnostic in the philosophical sense. A man named T. X. Huxley is responsible for the common usage of the term among English speakers, namely, the suspended belief of God. Philosophers such as Protagoras, Herbert Spencer, and others promulgated the relation of the term to be used with respect to the unknowable. Here, in this sense, Agnosticism is used apart from any belief or disbelief--but to the admitting of the inability of knowing God does or does not exist (Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion). I thought I made that clear, but hopefully this will shed more light on what I meant. Thanks.

[_JAK]

Livingstone22 stated:
You just bypassed that I said I was an Agnostic in the philosophical sense. A man named T. X. Huxley is responsible for the common usage of the term among English speakers, namely, the suspended belief of God. Philosophers such as Protagoras, Herbert Spencer, and others promulgated the relation of the term to be used with respect to the unknowable. Here, in this sense, Agnosticism is used apart from any belief or disbelief--but to the admitting of the inability of knowing God does or does not exist (Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. I thought I made that clear, but hopefully this will shed more light on what I meant. Thanks.

How does this assist in solving your dilemma? That is, how does your statement reduce or mitigate your question?

JAK

[_Livingstone22]

Later stated:
Livingstone22:
I don't have a testimony that the LDS church is true, but I don't have a testimony that it is false either...

The burden of proof always lies with the one (or those) who make assertions. You have NO RESPONSIBILITY to attempt to prove a negative. Generally, a negative is not proved. Hence, failure of an affirmative claim to prove that claim reliable, one should disregard the claim.


JAK

I'm not sure what you mean. If a claim is not falsified, when is it then not still a relevant possibility? (at least to a philosophical agnostic like myself) Also: as to unique doctrines, I like them not because they were pulled out of somebody's hat (well, perhaps they came from Joesph Smith's hat :), but that there is actually some good reasoning that I have applied to their possibilities. For example: the doctrines regarding spiritual matter/spirit bodies is something I have been studying a lot recently. It is the belief of "Materialist Dualism," as it is called in the philosophy of mind, and it is rather unique as most dualists subscribe to "Cartesian Dualism." On of the few philosophers and theologians who had this view in recent times is a man by the name of Orson Pratt--who influenced Mormonism greatly. My understanding at this point is that if one believes that the immortality, than Materialism is a better view. That's what I hold, and Mormonism is quite unique to other contemporary Christian denominations in that regard.