Hamblin's Creed

[_Kishkumen]

I can't believe he posted the follow-up comment in which you took him to task for suppressing your second comment to set up a straw man.

[_malkie]

I can't believe he posted the follow-up comment in which you took him to task for suppressing your second comment to set up a straw man.

Did he not just fail to kill it quickly after it went into the "Awaiting moderation" state?

[_Sethbag]

can rationally be used

What part of
"No True Scotsman!"
don't you understand?

I don't think this is a case of "no true Scotsman". Why do you think it is?

I'm talking about the word "Mormon" in its religious sense, and in reference to members of COJCOLDS. Do you disagree that one claiming to be "Mormon" in this religious, COJCOLDS sense could be assumed to believe in God, Jesus as Christ, Joseph Smith, and Smith's successors?

[_Darth J]

I don't think this is a case of "no true Scotsman". Why do you think it is?

Because Bill Hamblin is coming up with his personal catechism so he can color anything that is not faith-promoting coming from a NOM, John Dehlin, or an apostate as being said by someone who is "not a real Mormon." It's the same reason the Maxwell Institute had kittens over whether Grant Palmer is an "insider" to Mormon origins.

Is a member of the LDS Church, who regularly goes to church and participates in church activities, but who no longer believes that the Book of Mormon is literal history or Thomas Monson is really a prophet, a Mormon?

Is a member of the LDS Church who is completely inactive in church a Mormon?

Is a member of record of the LDS Church, who was baptized years ago but barely remembers it and does not self-identify as LDS, a Mormon?

Is a person who is in prison, and therefore has been excommunicated, but still believes in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and attends LDS services in prison, a Mormon?

These are the kinds of questions on which Hamblin wants to impose a facile shibboleth so he can dismiss "the wolves in sheep's clothing" as not only simply having a different point of view, but not even really being Mormons at all.

[_lulu]

can rationally be used

What part of
"No True Scotsman!"
don't you understand?

I don't think this is a case of "no true Scotsman". Why do you think it is?

I'm talking about the word "Mormon" in its religious sense, and in reference to members of COJCOLDS. Do you disagree that one claiming to be "Mormon" in this religious, COJCOLDS sense could be assumed to believe in God, Jesus as Christ, Joseph Smith, and Smith's successors?

Assume nothing.

[_Sethbag]

I will try to reply to Darth, Lulu, and Kish all in one post, without necessarily quoting your original replies to me. Sorry if I miss a point.

I don't recall the government of Scotland issuing a list of "articles of faith" of Scottish people, in order to set apart those Scotsmen who are "true" Scotsmen from the posers. The LDS church does, however, publish a list of Articles of Faith going back to its founder, Joseph Smith. Smith himself wrote these Articles of Faith as a way of characterizing his beliefs, and the beliefs of his followers, to an interested 3rd party who asked. Belief in God and Jesus were included in these Articles of Faith.

I'd be very interested in seeing some of you develop a time machine and go back in time and tell Joseph Smith to "assume nothing" about the beliefs of his followers*. If you do, let me know how that works out.

So, by definition, Mormons (of the LDS persuasion at least) are claimed by the church and its founder to believe certain things. If someone says "I'm a Mormon", most people will expect that this means something; that this will convey some actual informational content. Obviously defining the list of things people claiming this label ought to believe gets problematic the wider the net cast over the church's historical teachings, and eventually breaks down. I think Hamblin's list does a pretty decent job of paring down the things that Mormons have traditionally believed into a rock-bottom, bare minimum list that I think is reasonable.

We are talking about labels which are artificial and used by people to convey information to one another, not something defined by the laws of nature. In order to be workable, labels need to be understood, in general, by speakers and their listeners. Do any of you really think that very many people, upon hearing a person claim to be Mormon, will think it's not a given that this person believes in God, Jesus, and Joseph Smith?

By the way, I don't disagree with you guys that Hamblin is using his Mormon criteria as a way of delegitimizing John Dehlin and the NOMs. That doesn't mean he's wrong. I mean, the COJCOLDS lays out in fairly plain language it's doctrines and beliefs. Some of them anyway. To claim to be a follower of the COJCOLDS, and yet not believe the doctrines and teachings that the COJCOLDS itself claims as its own, is at best meaningless and at worst downright misleading. I don't really think that Hamblin is wrong about John Dehlin. I don't think that Dehlin is really "Mormon" in the full sense of the word anymore.

Neither am I, which is why I no longer self-identify as Mormon, though I've never been exed, nor have I resigned. I no longer self-identify as Mormon because I accept that the church gets to lay out its doctrines, and I either play along with them and believe as they teach, and identify myself with them in so doing, or I don't. And I don't.


*After you kill Hitler, anyway.

[_Sethbag]

by the way, it's a separate issue whether the church is being forthright when it claims 14 million members and whatnot.

Technically, they claim 14 million "members", not 14 million Mormons, and the language lawyers might argue that there's nothing wrong with this, because actual membership status doesn't really imply much more than that this person has at one time entered the rolls of the church, and not left them again.

I do believe, though, that when Monson or Hinckley tells an interviewer that Mormons are "14 million strong" or whatever, they are being more than a little disingenuous. They know their listener will assume this implies 14 million actual believers, when we all know this is certainly not the case.

[_Kishkumen]

So, when a person is baptized, are they asked point by point whether they accept all of the tenets laid out in the Articles of Faith?

Not when I was a missionary they didn't.

Do the missionaries ask prospective converts, "Do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? If yes, please specify in what sense you mean that, and keep in mind that anthropological definitions disqualify you for membership in the Church."

Does the Church demand that its members go through surprise testimony interviews with their ecclesiastical leaders to make sure that, at any given moment, members of the LDS Church adhere to all of those beliefs in a sense that satisfies some correlated definition set out in a handbook somewhere?

Not that I know of.

Are members explicitly and regularly told that if they don't have a complete conviction and knowledge of every claim of the LDS Church that they need to resign immediately on the grounds that they are not really Mormon?

No. At least, I don't know of such a practice.

Yesterday as I sat in sacrament meeting a young woman (late 20s, early 30s) gave an excellent talk aimed at the youth in which she said, before an entire group, "sometimes my testimony is strong, and sometimes it is weak."

What did she mean by weak?

Did the bishop take her aside afterwards, and say, "Please let me know the next time your testimony is "weak" so that I can determine whether you still qualify to be a member of this Church"?

I highly doubt it.

My view is that your understanding of the role of beliefs and creeds of this kind lacks sufficient nuance to be anything other than an inverse of the kind of rhetorical wedge Hamblin has created. Both of you are looking for ways to exclude people from Mormon identity. He because he finds these cafeteria types a threat to his idealized faith; you for other reasons. Neither of you are correct or even very realistic.

[_Drifting]

So, when a person is baptized, are they asked point by point whether they accept all of the tenets laid out in the Articles of Faith?

Not when I was a missionary they didn't.

Do the missionaries ask prospective converts, "Do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? If yes, please specify in what sense you mean that, and keep in mind that anthropological definitions disqualify you for membership in the Church."

Does the Church demand that its members go through surprise testimony interviews with their ecclesiastical leaders to make sure that, at any given moment, members of the LDS Church adhere to all of those beliefs in a sense that satisfies some correlated definition set out in a handbook somewhere?

Not that I know of.

Are members explicitly and regularly told that if they don't have a complete conviction and knowledge of every claim of the LDS Church that they need to resign immediately on the grounds that they are not really Mormon?

No. At least, I don't know of such a practice.

Yesterday as I sat in sacrament meeting a young woman (late 20s, early 30s) gave an excellent talk aimed at the youth in which she said, before an entire group, "sometimes my testimony is strong, and sometimes it is weak."

What did she mean by weak?

Did the bishop take her aside afterwards, and say, "Please let me know the next time your testimony is "weak" so that I can determine whether you still qualify to be a member of this Church"?

I highly doubt it.

My view is that your understanding of the role of beliefs and creeds of this kind lacks sufficient nuance to be anything other than an inverse of the kind of rhetorical wedge Hamblin has created. Both of you are looking for ways to exclude people from Mormon identity. He because he finds these cafeteria types a threat to his idealized faith; you for other reasons. Neither of you are correct or even very realistic.

Are you still Mormon if you don't hold a Temple Recommend?
Are you still Mormon if you don't pay tithing?
Are you still Mormon if you don't have a testimony?

[_Kishkumen]

Are you still Mormon if you don't hold a Temple Recommend?
Are you still Mormon if you don't pay tithing?
Are you still Mormon if you don't have a testimony?

Obviously yes.

These are stupid questions.