I found an interesting post on the Huffington Post this week entitled “What’s the Least You Can Believe and Still Be a Christian” by Martin Thielen. I encourage you to read the post as a companion to this one.
This particular post struck me on two levels. Firstly, it reminded me of a situation I found myself in as a teenager. And second, especially, here on the Bloggernacle, we have quite a few “cultural” Mormons, those who seem not to believe in the Church as a God-given, divinely inspired organization, led by Jesus Christ, but a social organization that they grew up in, but cannot leave or leave alone. And, they attend Church, for a myriad of reasons as well. How do those folks answer this question?
When I was about 15 years old, I came to the conclusion that I must not be a Jew because neither I nor my family did anything that practicing, observant Jews did. We didn’t belong to or attend Synagogue on a regular basis, barely acknowledged the holidays (except Hanukah, of course), didn’t pray, study scriptures or Talmud and generally didn’t participate in Jewish life. Sure, I was Bar Mitzvah. But it pretty much began and ended with that.
Well, as I’ve mentioned before, this set off a firestorm within my extended family, none of whom were observant either, that I was a Jew by birth, wherefore, I was a Jew.
My real problem, at the time and subsequently, was that the tent of belief within Judaism is quite large and runs the gamut from very, very conservative to very, very liberal. If one is born a Jew, believes in one God, almost everything else is optional. You can cover your head at all times; you don’t have to cover it at all. You can believe in resurrection, you don’t have to. You can believe in the coming of the Messiah, or you can say “what is a Messiah?” There is a lot of flexibility.
After I joined the Church and especially with the advent of the Bloggernacle, I discovered there is an almost equally wide range of belief within Mormonism, both for those active members of the church and those around the fringes of the Church. Even so-called mainstream orthodox, Temple-going, Tithe-paying, Family Home Evening-holding, scripture-studying members will have a variety of belief on certain topics.
So, without my creating a laundry list, I ask you the simple question:
“What’s The Least You Can Believe and Still Be a Mormon?”
Wheat & Tares 
I heard long ago, and with a dim memory cannot accurately quote, that the WHOLE purpose of the gospel doctrines within the ‘workings’ of the true Church, was to help you choose truth and light, develop your spiritual ETERNAL self to the furtherest point possible get you back to the presence of God, the Father, through the Atonement of his literal resurrected son – the Messiah and Redeemer Jesus Christ, as well as having been companioned by another God, the Holy Ghost, a sanctifier and purifier and witness for ALL things sacred and having to do with the eternal.
That, it would seem, goes FAR beyond just having a ‘title’ of membership to any one religion / church. Improving ones life, having subscribed to a set of doctrines and moral guidelines is, by any religion, not only a quest and diligent search, but a blood, sweat and tears process. We ALL have to WORK to improve the natural, overcome weaknesses and be better persons. Identifying specfics of the continuum of being MORMON, to me, would be impossible, since you would have to strictly look at the OUTSIDE acts and behavior / character of people from a ‘book’ of rules level only.
What is really in a person’s heart and mind is so personal and private, for the most part…you only get a glimpse from their ‘fruits’ resulting from how much they REALLY believe strong enough to dictate daily life according to their true feelings.
Isn’t it true that since most all religions have varying amounts of ‘truth’ in them, that most religions truths followed would result in that person being MORE GOOD< KIND CARING> HONEST> HONORABLE> RESPECTFUL> ad infintum???? Being “MORMON” to me, is an empty label
which would make your assessment true keeping your roots of being a Jew and ADDING Mormon…..why not ALL good things of all truth????
..my opinion remains that we each, are either following light & truth or darkness & deception….Catholic / Jew / Buddist / etc.
Anyone can say anything about ‘belonging’ but I think it’s impossible to place effective indicators on what you have asked…EXCEPT on their unseen hearts and minds and carefully over a long time watch their actions and fruits with all other people / animals / and nature over the WHOLE of their existence.
P.S….OOOPS, forgot my official quote:
It was Elder Bruce R. McConkie who said that too often the best-kept secret in the Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So, my EXACT answer to your question of “What’s The Least You Can Believe and Still Be a Mormon?” is:
the active word in your questions is “BE”.
“BE” does not result from partial belief.
To BE is more truly a WHOLE commitment or
at the least TRYING with your WHOLE self to BE. Any other assumption of belonging is a double-minded attitude. You get the LEAST reaults from a “LEAST” style of living.
You reap what you sow, it’s all our own choice, so we CANNOT go wrong taking ALL the truth and light and love from the “mormon” world and BEing the BEST Mormon we can be with all our hearts and souls !!!
According to Church policy, we are considered Mormons until our names are remvoed from the Church records–either by our own request or disciplinary action.
That policy creates a very large umbrella not based on belief or activity.
Jeff: With all due respect, I think your question is a wrong one. First, you need to define what you mean by belief: is it intellectual assent to a doctrinal proposition? Is it a devotion or loyalty or love for deity? Different people may feel a strong devotion to God, but not in the doctrines proposed by a Church.
Second, the question about “least” is in my opinion misguided, because it implies that there is a minimum required. Just like you said about being Jewish, you are culturally Jewish whether you “believe” in the Jewish God or any of the tenets of the Jewish faith or not. Having been raised LDS, I’m Mormon whether I like it or not because my worldview has been forever influenced by my upbringing. I might reject the doctrine and the lifestyle, but I’ll still carry with me the perspectives on my relationship with God and principles of clean living that were part of the Mormon culture and teachings. If I joined a new religious community, say the Catholic Church, I could identify as a Catholic, but I might also consider myself Mormon due to my upbringing.
In my opinion, the only requirement for someone to be considered “Mormon” is whether they self-identify as such. There is no base doctrine or creed that must be accepted to receive this appellation. Does that mean that religious labels such as “Mormon”, “Protestant”, “Catholic”, “Muslim”, “Jew”, etc. are virtually meaningless if anyone who wishes to call themselves by these terms can do so? Their power is certainly diminished, but these signifiers do have a general sense of meaning that has currency in the linguistic exchange. They represent some general concepts familiar to a particular religious tradition: for Jews it might be the concept of having only one God, Abraham, Torah, skullcaps, dietary restrictions, religious holidays with booths and candelabras, etc.; for Mormons it might be belief in God, Jesus Christ as savior, grace and works both necessary, Joseph Smith and modern prophets, the Book of Mormon, dietary restrictions, etc. These aren’t things to which the self-identifier MUST believe in to be considered Mormon, but are, rather, elements of the religious and cultural milieu from which they were raised. These terms “Jew” and “Mormon” might imply belief and practice, but not necessarily.
I suppose the least would be to believe that the lds church is a worthwhile enterprise that does good and that in belonging, one can contribute to those efforts.
There’s a difference between being Mormon and being a candidate for the celestial kingdom. The question posed goes to the heart of that difference. Anyone who refuses to yield up his heart to God without reservation, fully trusting in the merits of Christ to save, devoting himself totally to the work of saving himself and others will find himself unworthy to receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom.
Trying to be barely Mormon or partly Mormon won’t save anyone. The whole of the Book of Mormon teaches us to rely wholly upon the merits of Christ and to give our hearts and souls to him completely. If we hold back, we limit our potential. Trusting in God for the rest, willing to submit to whatever he sees fit to inflict upon us, is the essence of faith.
I’d agree with #3 that if your name is on the membership rolls you’re a Mormon, except…. There was a family in my ward who were baptized, but never active, and who decided to go to a Methodist church instead. The LDS church was just one of the places they tried out as they looked for a church for their family. They weren’t Mormon in belief or culture, only in name. They wouldn’t consider themselves Mormon and I wouldn’t consider them Mormon.
On the other hand, I don’t have any belief in Mormon doctrines either, and I don’t go to the LDS church. I found another church that is a better fit for my family. But I do consider myself Mormon and always will. I grew up in the culture, my family all considers themselves Mormon (though very few of them believe in the doctrine either), and the church shaped my heritage and the lives of my ancestors.
So I guess I’d say the least you can believe and still be a Mormon is to believe that you’re a Mormon.
To echo #3, and as a non-Mormon observer/critic speaking, it would seem one could still be a raging secular atheist and still be considered a Mormon.
Let’s not forget the question was “What is the least YOU can believe and still be a Mormon?”
It was not how the institutional counts you or name on the records or anything like that.
For me, I recognize a difference between “Mormon” (e.g., “believing Mormon” or “practicing Mormon”) and “cultural Mormon”. So, not only would my answers for the two questions differ, but they would differ to the point that I could say, “I’m not Mormon, but I am cultural Mormon.” If that makes any sense?
The least *I* could believe in and be Mormon are things like the articles of faith…e.g, believe in God, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Man must be punished for own sins, not for Adam’s transgressions. Etc., etc., Above and beyond that, I would add things like exaltation. I don’t know how I would define “orthodoxy,” but I would probably define it in such a way that casts doubt on the legitimacy of some “liberal Mormons” or “new order Mormons” as Mormons. So I often find myself thinking, “If you’re going so far to be liberal/new order, you should recognize that you’re going against the grain of what most people in the church recognize a Mormon should be…so…what’s the point?”
My answer for the least you can believe and still be a *cultural* Mormon is a lot simpler. Believe 1) that your history, upbringing, and past is relevant to your current identity and informs that current identity and 2) that your history, upbringing, and past is saturated in Mormon ideas, vocabularies, and practices. I would suggest that 2 happens because of the correlated nature of the church.
#4 – Not sure I entirely agree with this comment. I do agree that it’s highly subjective. In the same way that you choose to self-identify as mormon because of your upbringing and worldview, I choose to not identify myself as mormon even though I was raised in the same cultural tradition. That said, I don’t think it’s completely subjective. If someone from, say, another country where the church has no presence, read about the church and decided to start calling him or herself a mormon, even though he or she had no connection to the church and didn’t believe or even know about its teachings, I think it would a stretch to say that person is legitimately a mormon. There has to be some baseline belief or connection. I would agree that it is very minimal, but again, I don’t think it’s entirely subjective.
Besides, Jeff acknowledged in the OP that there are people who consider themselves mormon for varying reasons, and I didn’t interpret his comments to imply that those people’s mormonism was not legitimate. My question would be, although Jeff didn’t pose this question, what is the baseline that a person would need to believe to realistically be considered a legitimate believer in the mormon faith? Someone might call themselves a mormon, but if they don’t believe in god or jesus, for example, they’re not really an adherent to the mormon religion in any meaningful way. I think “cultural mormon” is a somewhat empty term. Mormonism is a religion. The culture is just the byproduct. I can assume a false new york accent and act like a new yorker, but calling myself a cultural new yorker doesn’t mean anything because I’m not a new yorker in any real way. So, while I believe there is a wide range of belief and behavior that would fall under the umbrella of mormonism, I disagree that there isn’t a minimum belief required to consider a someone a mormon.
#7 – I don’t think you can have it both ways. If mormonism is entirely subjective and considering yourself mormon makes you mormon, then just being on the rolls of the church cannot make you mormon; considering yourself to NOT be mormon must make you not mormon. My name is on the rolls of the church and that doesn’t make me a mormon any more than having someone add my name to the rolls of the democratic party would make me a democrat. Unless, of course, we want to define being a mormon or a democrat or anything else by membership records, in which case there is no such thing as a cultural mormon.
I like how Dr. Henry Eyring (father of the current President Eyring of the First Presidency) put it:
“In this Church you have only to believe the truth. Find out what the truth is.”
Obviously, mileage varies as to what constitutes “truth”.
In order to consider myself LDS, I have to believe 1) that God (including Jesus Christ) is real and cares about me, 2) That Joseph Smith was chosen by God to translate the Book of Mormon and establish the LDS Church, and that 3) the Prophet and Apostles are still chosen by God to lead His Church.
But I don’t do religion of convenience. Obviously, or I’d not still be LDS.
This is actually a hard question to answer, mostly because of “definitions”. What does “being a Mormon” actually mean? Technically on the rolls of the Church, Mormon in world outlook, Mormon in daily practices, Mormon in the sense that that is a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom, etc? There are many definitions.
And even for the fully-engaged, calling and TR-holding, active Mormon, the problem is that most things are NOT defined.
What does being a full tithe payer mean?
What does someone believe the WofW means?
What does someone believe keeping the sabbath day holy means?
Etc.
And even on a foundational basis, there are different minimums. If being a Mormon requires a belief in Joseph Smith, what does that mean? DIs it possible to accept him as a prophet, an inspired man, etc, yet still with flaws, or does someone have to accept all of these?
For the BofM as a foundational text, does someone have to accept it as a a word-for-word translation of an actual record, or can someone accept that JS didn’t even look at the plates when he dictated to his scribes and accept it as an inspired book but maybe not a direct translation?
For a belief in accepting and following Christ as a Mormon, does this imply that Christ cares about things like how many earring someone has or if they, like Him, drink wine?
Can you believe in the “One True Church” foundation of Mormonism yet still accept that since 99.9% of the world won’t ever be Mormon in mortality, that it doesn’t actually matter if you’re Mormon in mortality?
The problem is that NONE of these are defined by anyone, in the Church or out of the Church. Being a Mormon, therefore, is up to whatever an individual wants define it as to a large extent.
re 15,
Mike,
yeah.
so. what’s the least you can believe and still be a Mormon?
Opps, ended comment #15 before done typing:
I would therefore define the minimum belief to call oneself a Mormon:
1) A hope that God and Christ exist
2) A belief that Mormonism is enough of a useful tool in one’s life to at least include some aspects of the Mormon faith in one’s beliefs, actions and/or world view
lol, I guess I should’ve waited like a minute before responding then.
I would say that “Mormon” includes every person who is listed on the records of the Church, who:
— has faith in God;
— gives the assent of faith to the fact of Christ crucified;
— and believes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a serviceable vehicle for working out the implications of the above two beliefs.
On one hand, many of the beliefs which I consider definitive of a “Mormon” have fallen out of favor with the LDS church. For example, I would consider the doctrines of the King Follett Discourse, along with Lorenzo Snow’s famed couplet, to be “required belief” for a Mormon. Those, of course, are being drastically deemphasized, to the point where many bloggernacle discussions witness adamant rants against (if not outright denial of) these doctrines.
On the other hand, I bristle when LDS members proclaim against other churches which spring from the teachings of Joseph Smith, saying that only LDS can be called “Mormons.” Since every group stemming from Joseph Smith’s ministry blatantly rejects at least some of Joseph Smith’s teachings, I suppose they’re all (including the LDS church) entitled to be called “Mormons.”
MikeS, looks like you beat me to it. 🙂
Now, what’s the *most* you can believe, and still be Mormon?
Nick: I agree with you. That’s why my definition (#17) is so broad. I would include all of the faiths that came from Joseph Smith’s version of the Mormon’s faith. That’s also why I said that someone needed to consider at least some aspects of it useful. I don’t think that everyone accepts the same things as being true, as you pointed out. I also think the faith itself has changed over the years. Joseph Smith drank beer and wine. We don’t now (in mainsteam LDS version of Mormon faith). Hinckley isn’t sure what “As man is, God once was…” even means.
Thomas:
I agree with MOST of your definition, although I don’t even think that someone needs to be on the records of the Church. There may be someone who has left the Church (voluntarily or excommunicated) who still considers themself Mormon. There may be someone who was never technically baptized (maybe raised Mormon as a kid) who considers themselves culturally Mormon. Etc.
Nick, claiming that some important truth/doctrine in the King Follet Sermon is “being drastically de-emphasized to the point where many bloggernacle discussions witness adamant rants against (if not outright denial of) these doctrines” merely begs the question as to what was originally meant by that sermon. The truth is there is anything but consensus. And when someone comes along and claims that I MUST believe in THEIR interpretation of the King Follet Sermon, even though I think it is horrible, I simply have to disagree. There are certain traditional interpretations of that discourse that I simply don’t and can’t believe in.
See “My Take On Joseph Smith’s King Follet Sermon”
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-take-on-joseph-smiths-king-follet.html
“Joseph Smith drank beer and wine.”
Obsessed, I tell you. 🙂
#24:
…merely begs the question as to what was originally meant by that sermon. The truth is there is anything but consensus.
Thanks for demonstrating my point! Now nobody needs to ask me to point to specific blog postings elsewhere. 🙂
Nick, if your point is that there is more than one interpretation of the King Follet Sermon and the Lorenzo Snow couplet, then great–I’m more than happy to demonstrate that point. The only thing I’d shy away from is the assumption that Mormons must all believe some weak and problematic traditional interpretation as though it were “essential” doctrine.
I think the point that you can not call yourself a Mormon is a personal one, that being stated, I believe it starts when you knowing raise your hand in a sacrament meeting a refuse to support a leader in a new calling. Everyone expects support as being a given, but when you disagree and make that disagreement known, then you become anti-.
@ Jeff
I have a question for you, even though you are a member do you on some level consider yourself a cultural Jew. According to the Torah one is Jewish thru the bloodline of the mother isn’t it? Does that change for you even though you converted to another religion?
I’m not trying to be offensive by asking you this, I’m just curious how Torah handles the same question.
When it comes to what others will accept as being enough, I hope that hope is enough. I think it’s really discouraging when people draw lines in the sand and say that those who don’t step across it aren’t good enough to stay.
And it’s a good thing, too. I appreciate Mike constantly raising that issue because the more people that become aware of it, the more I hope people become more tolerant of Mormons who aren’t quite so orthodox.
I also quite like the following story
And, Mike, I might add that your view of the WoW would likely disqualify you from considering yourself a “Mormon” in the eyes of many. I agree with you, but there are certain “cardinal” commandments the mainstreamers follow these days, and our current WoW interpretation happens to be one of the chief ones.
I happen to think that the main reason we have any lines of demarcation as to what defines a “Mormon” versus a “Non-Mormon” is our orthodoxy and requirement that people fit in well-defined, if illogical, boxes. Anything that starts out with a list (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) is necessarily confining to anyone that doesn’t fit that list. I happen to disagree with several of these lists noted above, which by their definition would disqualify me from being categorized as a “Mormon.” Heck, I’m not even sure I want to be categorized at all.
I might argue that what we think of Mormonism today is skewed by how we vie the “Church™” as the purveyors of Mormonism.
The covenants were what mattered – largely in what ordinances you were willing to participate in. I’d recommend reading this article for more on this thought.
#29–Conifer, well said. I appreciate that especially now that there are many things I don’t quite “line up” with the majority on in regards to orthodoxy, so I much prefer not drawing so many lines to begin with.
Your comment about “hope” reminds me of what Terryl Givens recently said (at Mormon scholars testify) about believing things “we devoutly hope are true, and have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true.”
Seems to me that the more “certain” I am on things, the less open-minded I’ve become. As a result, there are now very few things I feel completely “certain” about.
Which in turn reminds me of another favorite quote by Hugh B. Brown: “Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one’s self.”
Diane,
“@ Jeff
“Do you on some level consider yourself a cultural Jew.”
Well, I am a Jew by birth and heritage and that cannot change. Better still, I am a full-fledged member of the House of Israel by birth. Culturally, I still enjoy many of the Jewish customs, foods (of course), holidays, etc. So yes and no.
“According to the Torah one is Jewish thru the bloodline of the mother isn’t it?”
Yes, that is the case. I find that a bit odd for a patriarchal religion to go by the birth of the mother. the joke is that you always know who the mother is!
Does that change for you even though you converted to another religion?
Technically, yes. As far as most Jews are concerned, I am not Jewish. I look at it that I do not practice the Jewish religion. But as I said before, I am a Jew by birth and heritage. Not sure how they take that away.
also, since I do belong to another faith, according to Israeli law, I do not have the “right of return” to move to Israel and become an Israeli citizen.
“I’m not trying to be offensive by asking you this, I’m just curious how Torah handles the same question.”
not at all. Interestingly, the ultra-orthodox do not consider most Jews to be Jews because they do not practice their particular brand of Judaism, especially reformed Jews.
Regarding my “obsession” – I actually follow our modern interpretation of the WofW, and have my whole life – ie. I don’t drink.
The reason I tend to use that as an example for various topics is that it is fairly clear-cut without much room for interpretation.
Many things are much less clear cut. For example, take the King Follett discourse discussed above. People don’t agree on what it means. People don’t agree on whether it is quoted correctly as it’s not a written copy of what Joseph Smith said. People don’t agree on the level of canonization. Even prophets disagree. Some prophets interpreted its concepts to mean that God was once like us, and that we have the potential to become like God. President Hinckey, in the oft quoted interview, said that he didn’t think we taught that and wasn’t really sure what that meant. Many, many topics are minefields like this.
The reason I use wine, for example, is that it is pretty clear cut.
– Christ drank wine (I assume). At minimum, His first recorded miracle was making wine. He also felt important enough about it to incorporate it into the sacrament, perhaps one of the main ordinances we use to remember Him on a regular basis
– Joseph Smith drank wine. In his journals, he talks about having a glass of wine at someone’s house to refresh their spirits. He also drank beer, etc.
– Wine was used in the temples. In the early temples (of OUR era), wine was used freely, both for sacrament and as a beverage. (Some “anti-Mormons” suggest the “visions” were related to drunkenness which I don’t necessarily agree with, but no one disputes that wine was used there).
– The prophet and apostles used wine for the sacrament in their weekly meeting into the 1900’s.
Contrast that with today:
– Wine is strictly forbidden
– We get talks about “not a drop”
– We get Primary lessons talking about Joseph Smith as a boy and his leg infection
– We have our priests repeat the sacrament prayer if they leave out a “the”, yet officially changed the revealed word from “wine” to “water”
– Drinking wine will keep you out of the temple.
This is all pretty clear cut without much room for interpretation. So, in a post like this, where you ask what it means to be a “Mormon”, and given that one of the top three things that the “world” thinks about when they think of Mormons is that they don’t drink alcohol, it is a very GOOD example.
Essentially, one of the “defining” characteristics of Mormonism isn’t really a part of what Joseph Smith revealed or what Christ followed. So it does beg the question, is it a VITAL characteristic of Mormonism? And if not something like that, then what does define Mormonism.
Now, leaving my “obsession” behind, back to normality. 🙂
Mike S,
You know I am just yanking your chain! 🙂 🙂 🙂
I know – but replying to you lets me talk about my obsession even more 🙂
Mike S,
chain-yanking aside, mormonism is also about continuing revelation, isn’t it? So the discontinuity of practices or belief isn’t much of a problem.
Andrew S., must we assume that every change in practice or belief is a result of “continuing revelation”?
When I look back in history at the transition of the Word of Wisdom from wise advice (and certain things in moderation) to now as it’s a complete requirement (with all out abstinence), I can understand how it happened, but I don’t see evidence for revelation.
“but replying to you lets me talk about my obsession even more”
Good–the first step is admitting to the problem! 😉
“but I don’t see evidence for revelation.”
It is a “feeling”. Not a seeing…..
Well, I’m certainly open to being persuaded otherwise. What, then, gives you the “feeling” that the evolution of the WofW into a requirement of abstinence is/was “revelation”?
(I promise I’m trying to be testy here, I just genuinely haven’t had a conversation about it with anyone).
Check that, I promise I’m NOT trying to be testy!
#27:
The only thing I’d shy away from is the assumption that Mormons must all believe some weak and problematic traditional interpretation as though it were “essential” doctrine.
What’s “weak and problematic” about the “traditional interpretation” of the King Follett Discourse, other than the fact that it makes young LDS squeamish that they won’t be accepted in the “christian” sandbox? Without Joseph Smith’s teachings as given in the King Follett Discourse, your church is just one more Protestant sect, albeit with an obsessive claim to exclusive divine authority (the only thing the LDS church *can* distinguish itself by, since it’s tossing more and more of Joseph Smith’s teachings aside each year).
“What’s “weak and problematic” about the “traditional interpretation” of the King Follett Discourse, other than the fact that it makes young LDS squeamish that they won’t be accepted in the “christian” sandbox?”
Actually, I already attempted to answer that question in the post I linked to above. It all comes down to what is explicit versus implicit. Explicit teachings aren’t always given the attention they deserve (especially when people get carried away with the implicit), but they will always provide a stronger case/interpretation.
It has everything to do with good historical inquiry that’s faithful to Joseph’s explicit teachings (not to mention fitting in with own standard works) and absolutely NOTHING to do with fitting in with traditional Christianity nor some Christian “sandbox”.
Did you even read the post?
Jeff:
Revelation is different than inspiration. You can’t change the scriptures and what they say (D&C 89) via inspiration, or a “good feeling.” The Saints (many/most) drank – or allowed others to drink – alcohol through at least the 1920s before it became a requirement for the temple.
There is absolutely zero evidence – that I’ve seen that the change instituted by Grant was a revelation.
What I’m saying is you can’t change what was once “advice” at best and only a temporal issue, to something that is a rigid “commandment” linked to your spiritual worthiness to partake of supposed salvatory ordinances without some sort of something other than a “feeling.”
The second question would then become whether you can change the scriptures, and transfigure them, altogether and expect the Lord’s blessing.
Uhh, are you saying that we can change the Lord’s words and scriptures, as dictated in our “standard works,” via a feeling as opposed to a “thus saith the Lord” revelation?
re 38:
Clean Cut,
By now, the conversation has progressed quite a bit…anyway, it’s not that we “must assume that every change is revelation.”
In fact, we don’t have to assume *any* of them are. It’s just that, I would presume the less revelation and inspiration one attributes to the church, this doesn’t say much for faith.
CleanCut, yes I did look at your anti-Joseph interpretation. You utterly disregard the fact that several successive presidents of the LDS church were actual confidants of Joseph Smith–men who heard him often enough, and knew him well enough, to understand what he taught. These are the same men who taught what you dismiss as the “traditional interpretation” of the King Follett Sermon. Frankly, your rejection of the understanding of those who actually knew and heard Joseph Smith speaks volumes—and renders your speculations quite unreliable in my opinion. I trust the early Mormon presidents’ and apostles’ understanding of Joseph Smith’s teachings far more than I do the modern guesswork of young people who simply can’t handle the uniqueness of what Joseph Smith taught.
“I would presume the less revelation and inspiration one attributes to the church, this doesn’t say much for faith”
Perhaps you’re right. So in my case, I suppose I better hope I have just enough faith in the right things. 🙂 Because I already know that my in some things my faith has actually decreased as I’ve learned more. Again, mileage varies in regards to our varying beliefs about what is true.
Back to the OP, there is a great story on pages 55-56 in “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” in which Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee were moving to excommunicate Sterling McMurrin for his unorthodox beliefs. When President McKay heard about it, he phoned McMurrin and asked for a private meeting. In that meeting, McKay was never critical nor disapproving. He told McMurrin: “They cannot do this to you! They cannot put you on trial!” and that if they did, he (the President of the Church) would be McMurrin’s “first witness”.
McMurrin writes: “I should have been censured for being such a heretic, and here President McKay wan’t even interested in raising a single question about my beliefs, but simply insisted that a man in this Church had a right to believe as he pleased. And he stressed that in several ways… It was really a quite remarkable experience, to have the President of the Church talking in such genuinely liberal terms.”
I love that story. It makes me really love and respect President McKay. Would that we could have more members like him today.
Nick:
I agree with you. For all of the things that annoy me about the Church (ie. earrings, wine (for Jeff), white shirts, etc.), one of the most profound things that sets the LDS faith apart from everyone else is the concept in the King Follett discourse.
We believe in the Bible. So do many other people. We believe in the Book of Mormon. But it’s not really that different from the Bible and there are many similarities and quotes between the two books, and certainly not much difference in actual doctrine. We believe in prophets, but so do many other people, both historically and now. While the Catholics may call their leader the Pope and we call ours the Prophet, they have the same function. Different religions ban different things – alcohol, pork, meat, coffee, etc. for various randomly indecipherable reasons. So in many ways, we are like everyone else.
But the idea that God was once a man, and that we have the possibility to essentially become a God (with a capital G) is profoundly different. It was taught by early Church leaders and was part of the general church lexicon when I was young.
But it’s downplayed now by everyone, even up to and including the Prophet (Hinckley). As we get rid of the unique things of the Mormon faith over time, from polygamy to King Follett to whatever, we are left with 2 main things on a practical basis as seen by the outside world: 1) basic Christian values common with other faiths and 2) random quirks that have been elevated to strangely high status (ie. number of earrings, no coffee but Red Bull ok, white shirts, etc.)
#37: Andrew S:
…mormonism is also about continuing revelation, isn’t it? So the discontinuity of practices or belief isn’t much of a problem…
That’s true, but it does lead to some difficulty when current traditions are presented as eternal doctrines. It also does lead to a bit of a loss of confidence, at least in my case. Throughout my life I have been told stories that are faith-promoting but make-believe in retrospect (Dunn). I have been taught that things are absolute gospel principles (blacks and the priesthood) that were basically institutionalized prejudices.
Perhaps it’s my own rational and skeptical nature, but when this happens long enough, I look askew at other things. When someone talks about numbers of earrings and tells my daughter she can’t go to EFY down at BYU if she has more than one set, I naturally wonder if God really cares about this, or if this is just someone’s opinion.
So, at least for me, the discontinuity IS a problem. I would think that God’s eternal principles wouldn’t waver as much as they do in our Church. In just over the past 100 years, polygamy went from essential eternally to grounds for excommunication. Wine went from an essential part of the sacrament in the temple to something that will keep you our of the temple. Blacks went from fence-sitters in the pre-existance to the same as everyone else. It does bother me.
#51 Mike,
Sometimes, it bothers me too. But then again, I’m not a believer.
Thomas asked “What’s the MOST you can believe and still be Mormon”
I suppose there’s no upper limit. Probably the most profound thing might be a personal visitation from God and Christ personally telling you that the LDS Church is the one and only true Church. I don’t know that this has happened to anyone besides Joseph Smith. We don’t even have any first-hand accounts of any of the prophets or apostles since Joseph Smith seeing Christ either. So I suppose this is theoretically possible, but who knows?
Nick, you crack me up. I don’t know that I’ve ever written a more pro-Joseph post, and yet because you don’t like what I write you label it “anti-Joseph”.
I attempt to figure out what Joseph taught by reading Joseph–not what other people say about Joseph. It’s quite unfair to say that my reading is based on trying to curry favor with Christians. My motivation is to be faithful to Joseph’s teachings.
Andrew S:
The ironic thing is that despite being a “non-believer”, you probably know more about the LDS Church than 99% of the members.
And, going back to the OP, were you comfortable with the title, I’d actually be fine calling you a “Mormon” although I have no idea whether you are or are not “on the rolls” officially.
Jeff, you might be interested to know that David O. McKay asked a very similar question as the title in your post. This isn’t in the text version of”David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism”, but it’s on the Mormon Stories podcast with Greg Prince (about the 12-14 minute mark). Sterling McMurrin related to Greg Prince (the author) that President McKay asked him a series of rhetorical questions such as “What is it that a man must believe to be a member of the church? Or what is it that a man is not allowed to believe to stay a member of the Church?”
He didn’t answer either question, but they’re good rhetorical questions. This was in 1954 when McMurrin told McKay that it looked like they were going to try to throw him out of the Church. McKay said that if they do “I will be the first witness in your defense”, and when word of this got out the excommunication charges were dropped.
That’s some serious compassion from the President of the Church. And apparently he was as tolerant of those on the far conservative side as he was of those, like McMurrin, on the liberal side. Very cool example of pitching a big tent and welcoming everyone in.
re: #47
Faith? In whom do we place our faith? Do we place our faith in man, men, an institution, leaders, Church™, organizations, programs, callings, couplets, prophets, buildings, initiatives, etc.?
Where you suggest a lack of faith for those who question inspiration and revelation in the decisions of an institution (any institution, really), I think the question should be turned on its face. The minute we start allowing things to go through, unchecked, assuming on “faith” that all is well, that the change/decision is either inspired or revealed, it’s at that minute that we begin our descent into apostasy.
The minute we allow any leader to lead us in such a way that we – the non-leaders – are on “auto pilot,” it’s at that minute that we change our position. In nature, there is no static position. We are either in a state of restoration, or one of apostasy. We’re either trending upward, or downward. We’re either growing close to the divine, or away from it.
An unquestioning membership who places their “faith” in the decisions – no matter what decisions they may be and no matter what congregation they belong to – is a membership who is easily controlled, easily manipulated and easily lead astray. Though Mormons believe in continuing revelation, it’s this same belief which essentially allows the Church™ to change it’s opinions as often as the wind and have a good excuse for doing so. In fact, the membership is so complacent with a leadership that they know “beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt” to be leading them full speed ahead, that there’s very little the Church™ could do today that wouldn’t be accepted without a second thought. You name it, anything and everything the COB emits is deemed worthy, righteous and approved. While in theory, continuing revelation is great, in practice – especially with a membership as complacent as mainstreamers are – it’s potentially problematic.
Mormonism, at its heart, is about an engaged people – constantly yearning for and/or exploring the divine. Today, however, we generally have a complacent membership who thinks that all guidance and inspiration that comes through the hierarchical standards created throughout most of the 1900s and today are inspired, divine and super special. We’re an obsequious, fawning mass looking at, and for, the “holy” and “sacred” leadership.
In fact, though, we now revel in the adulation and obedience we give to the organization. While Jesus provided the ultimate example and deflected praise, admiration and adoration at every turn – going so far as to tell his admirers to say nothing, today we have people praising our leadership as “holy”, “fantastic”, “sacred”, “beloved”, “amazing”, “magnificent” and on and on in both general conference and local meetings on a weekly basis. And, ironically, both we and they do nothing to stop it. In fact, it seems more and more to be something that is both encouraged and welcome.
I’ve digressed enough, but suffice it to say that I see little connection between “faith” – at least as defined in the scriptures – and whether we question declarations, changes and programs that come from the COB. Especially when it relates to items that directly relate to whether or not we’re able to participate in salvatory ordinances (i.e. tithing, Word of Wisdom, etc).
re 55,
Mike,
it IS funny how it works out that way.
And I mean, I guess I don’t have a problem with other people being fine with calling me a Mormon (btw, I think status on the rolls is pretty irrelevant. I think an excommunicated person can be Mormon and an ex/post/former Mormon can be on the rolls) — I just feel like I can understand the position of people who WOULDN’T want me calling myself Mormon. Recognizing that Mormonism is a religion…well, I don’t have any illusions about being religious.
re 57:
davis,
I’d imagine you place your faith in God. I dunno, I’m not a doctor.
However, what does putting your faith in God look like. I think, from an LDS perspective, it looks like sustaining your leaders, holding them to be inspired, etc., etc., Attempts to separate the gospel from the church or whatever are fine by my rules, but it seems to me that you shouldn’t think yourself to be the average Mormon if you do so. You may have different ways of showing how and where you place you faith, but if you become too different, you shouldn’t be deceived into thinking you have a mainstream LDS position.
Basically, when your argument is to say that a wide percentage (perhaps majority?) of the church’s members are in apostasy…then that’s fine by me, but then you should recognize that you are not the average Mormon and your position doesn’t reflect a general, average Mormon position. (Maybe take pride in that. After all, you wouldn’t want to be average if average is apostate.)
1. Jesus is the Christ
2. We lived with God before we were born and we’ll live with Him again. Our lives have a purpose.
Pretty much everything else is up for grabs, IMHO.
I had thought I would be the only one reading this thread and thinking, “What’s the least my church (which is not the LDS, but CofChrist) can believe and still be Mormon?” Apparently not, since some seem to have an analogous LDS question.
I think the emphasis on covenant is really key, although I’d amplify “covenant” as consisting on God’s promises and mem’s missions, since my church always had a different concept of “sealing” covenants than do the LDS.
So, to me, being Mormon as opposed to some other kind of Christian, requires at minimum a belief that Christ gave Joseph Smith a mission which we have accepted a covenant to try to fulfill throughout our lives. We can presume that tools like the church and our unique scriptures are important parts of God keeping His promises, but secondary to our part of the covenant.
I always liked the quote (either from McConkie or Maxwell) “partial belief brings partial salvation”
Will, since we’re all “partial” believers (our understanding is only partial and not complete), I guess that wouldn’t be the first time that McConkie said something that was neither particularly true nor helpful.
#61:
I always liked the quote (either from McConkie or Maxwell) “partial belief brings partial salvation.”
No offense, Will, but a lot of Mormon Fundamentalists like that quote too, and for reasons that would really disturb you.
Nick’s right, Will. No offense, but that’s a stupid statement.
Elder Oaks gave a talk at the Harvard School of Law last year that’s printed in January Ensign. He said was I said, only better and longer. Check it out.
anneg,
“1. Jesus is the Christ
2. We lived with God before we were born and we’ll live with Him again. Our lives have a purpose.
Pretty much everything else is up for grabs, IMHO.”
Uh-oh, that sounds a lot like my Jewish example. I am not sure that much is actually up for grabs in the LDS Church, but we are certainly moving in that direction!
“No offense, Will, but a lot of Mormon Fundamentalists like that quote too, and for reasons that would really disturb you.”
That was awesome, Nick!
During one of his MTC talks while I was there, Elder Oaks said pretty much the same thing, specifically pointed to senior couples going to places in Africa, and anywhere else the culture might be different from their Utah/Idaho wards: “one faith, one Lord, one baptism… THAT IS IT!”
If I should ever leave this church, God forbid, I will become a Jew for Jesus. So, Jeff, maybe that’s where I’m coming from. Todd Peterson, a wonderful writer, once said he was a Mormon because we have the best explanation of how the universe works. I agree.
annegb [69]
How does the Sun getting its energy from Kolob explain how the universe works better than other religions?
“If I should ever leave this church, God forbid, I will become a Jew for Jesus.”
Taking the middle road, are we?
@69)
If that’s the case then I would think you would become catholic, because Messianic Jews are Jews who are converted to Catholicism for the specific purpose of believing in Jesus.
You know what because of this post and many others I now know that I no longer believe any of this stuff, And I’m not even upset by that, in fact its’ quite liberating
Mark 7:7
“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Earrings, white shirts, WoW, no facial hair, etc. are all examples of commandments of men.
“If that’s the case then I would think you would become catholic, because Messianic Jews are Jews who are converted to Catholicism for the specific purpose of believing in Jesus.”
Afraid not. They tend more to the evangelical side, Protestant.
Bishop Rick, well Todd said it, but it’s not as simplistic as that. Get a grip. The Plan of Salvation is a part of explaining how the universe works, hello.
I am going to be a Jew for Jesus how I want to be a Jew for Jesus. If I ever become a Jew for Jesus. Diane, relaxing about it is part of believing, in my opinion. I think God is SO much more relaxed than we give Him credit for.
annegb [76]
I realize that Todd said it, but you posted it and agreed with him, which is why my response was directed at you, not Todd.
The plan of salvation has nothing to do with the universe. It pertains to eternal progression, not cosmic forces, big bangs or black holes. Perhaps you (er Todd) meant to say something else.
Well, me and Todd can decide what we believe about the universe and how Mormonism applies. I think the Plan of Salvation explains it perfectly. Todd might have a different belief about it, but he said it. I was in the room. HOWEVER, why would we assume that the best way to explain how the universe works is scientific and based on an explanation of science? Why couldn’t it be spiritual in nature? You might disagree with me but then I just as quickly can disagree with your disagreement. It’s a free country and I can think what I want.
WELL now. I think Bishop’s response was directed at annegb and NOT Todd, because Bishop is a sexist patriarchal suit… or something. Also, I second “it’s a free country.” 😀
For the sake of honesty, I have to say that Todd Peterson would pretty much gag a maggot if he knew I was associating myself with him. If he knows who I am, I’m pretty sure he dislikes me. And if he didn’t know who I was, something about me just bothered him. Maybe the fact that I corrected him. In one of his stories, he said either “sing shiva” or sit kaddish”. It was a small error. I thought he’d appreciate my pointing it our. Not.
So let’s forget this unpleasant part of the conversation and pretend I never mentioned him. But I’m all over Jews for Jesus. Should I ever cease to be all over being a Mormon.
It’s just that I think most of our “beliefs” aren’t religious or spiritual doctrines at all. They’re clubs of conformity that we use against ourselves and others. God just can’t be perfect and appreciate all the bs.
anneg,
I discovered a technical problem with your plan.
In order to be a Jew for Jesus, you first have to be a Jew. And if you are “for Jesus,” you can’t be a Jew. So I think you need to go to plan B.
BTW, this is true regardless of where Kolob is.
Oh fine, if you want me to stay in the church, I will. Just for you.
And for me annegb …
Saved one! 🙂
@ 75)
I was taking a class on Judaism a few months back and I specifically asked the rabbi about Messianic Jews. Rabbi specifically stated that it was the Catholics who were responsible for the Messianic Jews forging millions of dollars trying to convert Jews to Catholicism and it was endorsed by the Pope.
:). I’m pretty sure a lot of my leaders wish I’d take my iconoclasm elsewhere.
“Rabbi specifically stated that it was the Catholics who were responsible for the Messianic Jews forging millions of dollars trying to convert Jews to Catholicism and it was endorsed by the Pope.”
I would totally disagree with that Rabbi. Jews for Jesus is a specific group founded by Moshe Rosen and HQ’d in San Francisco. the term Messianic Jew is more a generic term to cover those Jews who converted to Christianity but still have a Jewish identity. Not Catholic.
Regarding how the Plan of Salvation is the best explanation of how the “universe” works (defined, possibly, as “human experience in the universe”), why is that so?
The Plan of Salvation is definitely an attractive doctrine, which goes possibly farther towards resolving the theodicy problem (although still possibly not quite all the way).
But the criteria I would use to decide whether some teaching or other is the “best explanation of how the universe works,” the word “best,” to me, has the meaning of “most accurate,” not necessarily “most attractive.” Some things are attractive, that are not very accurate, and vice versa.
So: Does the Plan of Salvation match up to how I see the universe operating?
Take the implications of premortal existence. We believe that some aspects of individual human personalities are eternal, preexisting mortality. How does that square with our observation of the many ways human personalities can be altered by heredity, environment, or even a hard knock on the head?
Take the idea that we chose to experience mortality to be tested — to see if we will do all things whatsoever the Lord will command us. Is mortality all that good of a test of that? Is the Lord’s will made sufficiently clear to us, that a useful testing can take place?
Take the whole idea of the Plan of Salvation as something that can be distilled down to a flowchart, and declared with something approaching certainty. Is that truly how we experience the universe? I appreciate that the Platonistically-influenced traditional Christian world may go overboard in relishing “mystery,” but dagnabbit, there’s a lot that simply is mysterious. In our zeal to see ourselves as possessing extensive light and knowledge, might we be trading false certainties for an appreciation of mystery, which might itself have the power to foster spiritual growth?
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Your mileage may vary — but I experience the universe far more like Job, than I experience it like someone who could confidently walk someone through a Plan of Salvation chart. I like much of its content — I believe the doctrine of free moral agency is a beautiful reinforcement of the doctrine of Christian liberty — but sometimes I wonder if the whole package doesn’t go beyond the mysterious “God’s ways are not your ways” universe that I perceive.
You have the right to believe what you believe and I have the right to believe. For instance, I hate Job. Not the man, the book. Hate it. And I think we’re so far off the mark (everybody, Mormons are closer, but only by an inch) as to God’s true nature & and the nature of existence, ie the universe, that it’s going to be pleasantly shocking to most of us.
Annie:
I’m genuinely interested – what is your view on God’s nature?
I come more from this and this background (which are really unfair links – 2 entire books – but there they are anyway), but would appreciate a brief (or not brief) overview from you.
Thanks!
Homer,
That sounds like a set up. Especially given the references.
No set up. Honestly. I would like to know, especially given Annies comment about “hat[ing]” the book of Job – not the man, but the book, as well as her comment about our not understanding it. Any comment like that intrigues me because it represents – at least in part – someone who has taken the time to consider things at a decent level of detail. I would love to hear her thoughts.
adamf [80]
“sexist patriarchal suit”?
Really?
I can see pompous, arrogant, out of touch, etc.
but I am anything but sexist, and I am anything but patriarchal.
Do you even read my comments?
Oh and I rarely wear a suit. Ties are quite enough in my book.
Those books sound interesting, I’ll have to check them out. Have you read “Reaching for the Invisible God?” I come from an abusive home and so have seen God as mean and punitive. I started to study near death experiences, however, and am convinced God is a million more loving to us than we are to ourselves and each other. My neighbor died during a pregnancy and relates that the near death experience she had was one of being cocooned in the most supreme love. I imagine my quest for God will continue all my life, but the punitive “God’s gonna throw you out of the Celestial Kingdom” aspect of the Mormon psyche I now pretty much reject.
Marian D. Hanks had a plaque on his wall that said “to know there is a God is to know that all the rules will be fair and that there will be wonderful surprises.” Love that.
Job, well I think it’s a crock. Would God truly argue with Satan and set up one of His children for heartache to win a bet with Satan? Heck, no. And we have these meetings where righteous people squirm and earnestly proclaim their desire to follow Job’s example while never questioning the book of Job’s terrible portrayal of God. You know where it says “if ye then being evil. . . How much more, etc?” Job contradicts that and God’s power. There’s a lot in scripture I take with a grain of salt. Right now I’m reading Jeremiah and I’m thinking “Oy! Stop kvetching already!” But finding some nuggets nevertheless.
Hope that answers your questions.
I toss out Jew for Jesus half in jest. I can’t see me leaving the church. But–I do like their ceremonies and traditions. The 3 I know about anyway.
annegb [95]
Couldn’t agree more about Job. I also think the story of Sodom and Gomorah (as written) is hogwash, especially the miraculous incest.