My Response to the Hamblin Creed

[_Sethbag]

Seth, yeah, I could see that as a likely interpretation of "liberal Mormon".

Aristotle: I see what you mean, and you're probably right that the less the term "Mormon" is made to mean, the weaker will be the hold on people, and the easier it will be to leave. I guess I, too, would hope the revisionists would succeed in weakening the value of the brand. It seems clear that Hamblin agrees as well, and that's why he's lashing out this way. He doesn't want to see the brand weakened in this way.

[_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.

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.

What about Catholicism and Judaism? They both retain their conservative core but tolerate liberal expression.

[_Aristotle Smith]

What about Catholicism and Judaism? They both retain their conservative core but tolerate liberal expression.

In general, they are also both losing adherents, which was the main point of my post.

There is lots of growth in ultra-orthodox and Hasidic Judaism. Those communities are not bastions of liberal expression; you don't get to serve ham sandwiches at your Hasidic bar mitzvah.

But mostly I don't think comparisons between Catholics/Jews and Mormons make any sense at all, no matter who is growing or contracting. I don't think what works or doesn't work for Jews and Catholics is at all transferable to Mormonism.

[_sethpayne]

What about Catholicism and Judaism? They both retain their conservative core but tolerate liberal expression.

In general, they are also both losing adherents, which was the main point of my post.

There is lots of growth in ultra-orthodox and Hasidic Judaism. Those communities are not bastions of liberal expression; you don't get to serve ham sandwiches at your Hasidic bar mitzvah.

But mostly I don't think comparisons between Catholics/Jews and Mormons make any sense at all, no matter who is growing or contracting. I don't think what works or doesn't work for Jews and Catholics is at all transferable to Mormonism.

I see a lot of parallels between Mormons and Catholics -- One True Church, hierarchical priesthood structure, a living Oracle in the Pontif/Prophet.

Why don't you think Mormonism could go the way of Rome in terms of tolerating heterodoxy? Hans Kung comes to mind. JPII certainly didn't like him but he was never excommunicated.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Rather, I'm curious to know what Mormon-specific dynamics would prevent it from becoming more agreeable to pesky liberals.

[_Kishkumen]

I get the sense that the people who are most likely to challenge a sethpayne are one of several things: ignorant, insecure, or motivated by another agenda. That other agenda is most likely one of two things: 1) the need to defend Mormonism from the "Other" and thus maintain its purity, or 2) the desire that Mormonism will increasingly lose members/followers and collapse.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I see a lot of parallels between Mormons and Catholics -- One True Church, hierarchical priesthood structure, a living Oracle in the Pontif/Prophet.

Why don't you think Mormonism could go the way of Rome in terms of tolerating heterodoxy? Hans Kung comes to mind. JPII certainly didn't like him but he was never excommunicated.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Rather, I'm curious to know what Mormon-specific dynamics would prevent it from becoming more agreeable to pesky liberals.

I don't think Kung is a good example to use, he is after all prohibited from teaching Catholic Theology. Though that's nitpicking because you could have cited many others.

I think there are lots of reasons that Rome has in the past been able to tolerate more of a mix of opinions. I'll just give two examples, one that has changed recently (and in my opinion has lead to a decreased ability to tolerate diversity) and one that has stayed the same.

Example #1: Until very recently the Catholic church has enjoyed official state sponsorship, de facto state sponsorship, and/or solitary status as the only Christian option in many countries. When you have no competition, government funding, political power, etc. it's pretty easy to tolerate small amounts of just about anything. In many circumstances the Catholic Church may have had no option but to tolerate liberals as a condition of state sponsorship, if the government is footing the bill, you have to play ball with the government.

As this has gone away you see Catholics leaving in droves. In Europe the flight is to atheism. I have seen several news stories recently that in South America Catholics are leaving for forms of EV Christianity. For the South American case, this is a flight from a non-comittal-easy-going (i.e. liberal) form of Christianity to a more demanding and conservative variety.

Example #2: The Catholic church has always developed doctrine differently than has the LDS church. Doctrinal development has tended to be conciliar (such as Nicea I, Fourth Lateran, Vatican II, etc.) or based on the work of theologicans (such as Augustine and Aquinas). This style of development is amenable to independent thinking and new ideas and approaches. Theological liberals generally want to contribute and debate, and there is a place for that in official church policy and decision making. I see no such place in LDS discourse and governance and thus much less room for theological liberals.

As for the similarities between Catholic hierarchy and LDS hierarchy, I think the similarities are more superficial than real. Catholics think they are the one true church, but this is a softer stance than the LDS version. Catholics do not claim absolute priesthood authority, a Lutheran convert's baptism is valid in the eyes of the Catholic church. Plus the claim to one true church status has been treated differently vis-a-vis the Orthodox than with other churches (at least that's my opinion on the matter, I grant that others will see it differently).

The hierarchy itself is much more independent than is the LDS version. A Catholic diocese has much more independence from Rome than and LDS stake has from Salt Lake in just about every way.

As for the Pope, I don't think it's an apt comparison to the LDS prophet. The LDS prophet is much more revered and treated more deferentially by Mormons than is the Pope by Catholics. On the upside, the Pope gets his own country and cool red shoes. Every Catholic knows that some Popes are in hell. Try and get the average LDS person to identify if any LDS prophet is in the Telestial kingdom.

[_Kishkumen]

A couple other dissimilarities could be brought into the mix, but these actually support sethpayne's liberalism and Mormon tolerance of it, rather than the opposite, which others seems to insist on:

1) Mormonism does not have a thick book of dogma that catechumens must accept in order to get baptized (or confirmed)
2) Mormonism is a form of universalism in that almost everyone is saved to one degree or another, whereas Catholicism has a robust doctrine of eternal damnation
3) A number of statements by prophets, beginning with Joseph Smith as canonized in JSH, actually cut against the idea of creeds and orthodoxy, including most recently President Hinckley, who is on record saying that Mormons are free to believe whatever they like, so long as they do not publish

Where do these things leave Hamblin's narrow prescriptions on Mormon identity? In the dustbin, imho.

[_Tobin]

3) A number of statements by prophets, beginning with Joseph Smith as canonized in JSH, actually cut against the idea of creeds and orthodoxy, including most recently President Hinckley, who is on record saying that Mormons are free to believe whatever they like, so long as they do not publish

Just publish under a pseudonym. We need to give all those workers in the COB something to do. If your books are popular enough, they may even dedicate a department to figuring out who you really are.

[_lulu]

Kosher Atheists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

[_Kishkumen]

Kosher Atheists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Cool!

I actually know a kosher atheist personally. I am happy to see this article.

I finally got around to listening to Daniel Peteron's interview with Dan Wotherspoon on Mormon Stories. I was struck by the value Daniel found in associating, in his role as bishop, with people who were so different from himself in terms of their knowledge, intelligence, and general approach to life.

Why should I or sethpayne find it any less valuable to associate with those who believe in very literal ways, even if we don't?

To Bill Hamblin that is unacceptable. Yet he, being so intolerant of others, expects us all to tolerate him.