Warning: Incoming Wall of Text.
I’ve started this blog post many times over during the past few years, but decided that it was finally time to write it up and post it. The question, quite simply (right, like this is going to be simple), is “What is a Mormon?” or alternately “Who is a Mormon?”
The original genesis of this post came from my time at Yale, mostly from two different encounters. The first was the encounter with liberal Protestants. To be clear, “liberal Protestant” is a vague term, but in my experience it included people who claimed to be Christian, but didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. Sure, he was a nice guy, we think, and said some good stuff, we think, and we can do good things in his name, but as far as that entire “Son of God” thing, well, that’s not something we can know, so we shouldn’t bother. The epitome of this was a student named Jay, who said that scripture, reason, and tradition were the “unholy trinity” of Christianity, and we ought to abandon them. I’m not sure if his position was all that well thought out, but the arrogance that idea displayed astounded me. You just want to ignore the founding documents of your religion and the last 2k years of trying to understand them? My response was, “Well, if we’re making our religion up, I’m going backpacking. I dunno why you want to sit in pews and sing hymns. That’s BORING!” Part of me feels that C.S. Lewis was at least partially right-that Jesus has presented us with a binary choice. “Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse . . . But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.” But then we get into issues of who actually wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and I think Lewis has also oversimplified the situation. I am sympathetic completely with Richard Neibuhr’s statement: liberal protestants of the 1930s say that “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” Seems that they’ve missed a large part of the boat. Doctrine may not be the most important aspect of being a Christian, but it’s not unimportant either.
The second encounter at Yale was with one of my LDS friends. This friend still attends church in New York City, and even teaches the High Priest’s quorum, but he does not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet (but he was “inspired”), that the Book of Mormon is historical in any sense (but it’s certainly got some good teachings and has some religious value), that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet (again, “inspired”), that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the “only true and living church” (though it is where God wants him to be), or any of the other relatively fundamental doctrines of the LDS church. I’ve wanted to write this post for a while, and title it “[Name], Buddy, You’re Not a Mormon!” But I was never quite comfortable saying that, so it languished in the back of my mind and I never got around to writing this post.
However, recently I’ve come across a different impetus. I’ve been listening to podcasts during my runs. One of my favorites is Mormon Stories, usually hosted by John Dehlin. John interviews a variety of Mormons from Greg Prince, who is on my stake high council and wrote “David O. McKay and the Beginnings of Modern Mormonism” to Lisa Butterworth, the founder of the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog. The topics range all over the place, and for anybody who hasn’t listened to them, I highly recommend them. A community has grown up around the podcast and they’ve recently started having Mormon Stories conferences. At their most recent conference in Salt Lake City, they came up with a set of value statements that I think are most enlightening to their aims. I reproduce them here with their caveat that this represents “a draft that is open for discussion.”
1. We choose to self-identify as Mormons. We claim this identity based on our genealogies, upbringings, beliefs, relationships, and other life experiences.
2. We believe that one can be Mormon or claim a Mormon identity without necessarily adhering to the teachings or doctrines of any religious organization.
3. We celebrate the richness of Mormon heritage, teachings, and community in all of its diversity.
4. We seek spaces where we as Mormons can live lives of intellectual and spiritual integrity, individual conscience, and personal dignity.
5. We acknowledge and honor different spiritual paths and modes of religious or non-religious truth-seeking. We respect the convictions of those who subscribe to ideas and beliefs that differ from our own.
6. We recognize the confusion, distress, emotional trauma, and social ostracism that often accompany personal faith crises. We seek constructive ways of helping and supporting those experiencing such crises, regardless of their ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation or activity.
7. We affirm the inherent and equal worth of all human beings. We seek spaces where Mormons (and all people) can interact as equals regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. In this spirit of egalitarianism, we prefer non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical means of organization and affiliation.
There’s some interesting stuff there, and last week on my runs I listened to the podcasts from the conference, namely talks by Carolyn Lynn Pearson and Joanna Brooks. Joanna made me stop in the middle of the run after I started laughing so hard when she exclaims in dismay that there are no tissues at the pulpit, since it was at a Unitarian church, and apparently Unitarians don’t cry at the pulpit like Mormons do. So, I finally decided to dust off the idea for a blog post about the definition of Mormonism. Since the draft of those seven principles is open for discussion, this is my attempt at continuing the discussion. I will also be responding directly to things that were said in those podcasts.
I am extremely uncomfortable with any definition of Mormon that doesn’t include some kind of religious belief. Both Joanna and Carolyn make a big deal over the fact that Jewish identity is not wrapped up in Judaism. You can still call an atheist Jew a Jew. Joanna, however, rightly points out briefly that there are problems with equating Jewishness to Mormonness, but doesn’t elaborate on the point. I’m not sure what she would say if she were to elaborate on it, but I think that one thing which is quite clear is that Mormons are not a unique, genealogically related people the same way Jews are. I could become an adherent to Judaism, but I would not be a Jew. A Jew could become a Mormon, and he would just be a Mormon. So to say that Mormon identity can be similarly discussed like Jewish identity is a huge mistake.
I think a better comparison would be Islam. Can you really be a Muslim without believing the shahada, that “there is no God but God, and Muhammed is the messenger of God?” I don’t think so. Islam is not a genetic identity. It’s much more wrapped up in belief, as I’ve talked about before. Of course, there’s also the orthopraxic side of Islam, but I think even if you don’t pray five times a day you could still be considered a Muslim, just one who doesn’t follow that particular pillar of Islam. But I think the shahada is non-negotiable. Are there similar beliefs in Mormonism?
New Order Mormons don’t think so. The Mormon Stories podcast with one of their founders was a very interesting one to listen to. She basically said that we’re all “buffet Mormons” to some extent, picking and choosing which doctrines we believe. So why not embrace that fact? And while I agree in part, I am uncomfortable with the idea that you can simply pick and choose anything to believe and still be Mormon. I’m probably overstating her case, so go listen to her podcast. Are there no necessary and sufficient conditions to be Mormon? Or is this like Sarah Palin calling herself a feminist, when she is pro-life. Can you be pro-life and a feminist? (I hope so.) Can you be an atheist and a Mormon? (I don’t think so.) Are we all simply “making it up?” If so . . . well, I’m going backpacking, just like I told my liberal Protestant friends at Yale.
So what do you have to believe to be Mormon? The temple recommend or baptismal questions might be a good place to start, and they are interesting because they are mostly orthopraxic, not so much orthodoxic. But there are statements about the Godhead, Jesus Christ as Savior, the restoration of the gospel, and the modern church leaders as prophets. As far as orthodoxy goes, that’s not very much (even with all it entails). Certainly less theologically dense than even citing a creed in mass, if you know what the creed entails.
But then there’s the niggling thought in the back of my mind that my friend in New York City cannot answer those questions the way the church would like, yet he still shows up to church and serves every week. He is clear and open to his bishop and does not want the Church to change to suit his whims. He is okay not holding a temple recommend, for example. Is he really not a Mormon? Or perhaps a contrasting example from one of the presenters at the Faith and Knowledge conference at Duke earlier this year will be enlightening. This presenter said it was completely okay to lie to the bishop about his Word of Wisdom violations in order to attend a family member’s sealing. To be clear, “uncomfortable” doesn’t even begin to describe what I feel for that particular aspect of what this presenter said at the conference. “Honest in your dealings with your fellow man” anybody? But does such a blatant violation of LDS rules mean he is not a Mormon?
Perhaps instead of Islam, a better analogy would be Catholicism. I recently read this article, and really liked the third option it gave, i.e. a Catholic is someone who believes somehow in the sacraments and sacramentals, and this belief ends up creating cultural Catholics more easily identified because of statues, pictures of Mary, etc. Calling this third option “cultural” doesn’t quite capture the nuance of the idea; there’s definitely something religious going on. And they do say their creed at every mass. But if we want to apply this rule to Mormonism, then we run into the problem that to participate in the LDS ordinances (sacraments), you need to answer the recommend questions correctly. I had to show mine to one of my brother-in-laws bishopric so I could help confirm my nephew last weekend. Oddly enough, though, nobody checks your worthiness week to week to take the sacrament, arguably the most central ordinance in the church. But that’s probably because of the impossibility of thoroughly interviewing everybody who shows up at church every week.
I very much don’t like the idea that the definition of “Mormon” is merely membership records, because heaven knows there are plenty of “Mormons” by that standard that don’t go to church, don’t believe anything at all church-related (or at least uniquely LDS, many will of course be Christians of one variety or another), and don’t claim membership in the church or of the term “Mormon.” So that’s not a good definition, even if you can only make your “I’m a Mormon” profile at Mormon.org if you have a membership record. (And at least the church’s PR department is working to make us not seem like this Newsweek cover from 2001.)
Mormons are getting more exposure, and “member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” is probably the most commonly accepted definition. I’ve even seen the mainstream media mostly get basic Mormon beliefs correct!
Nor should the definition be just those who actually show up on Sundays, because there are many that claim to be Mormon, but don’t go to church regularly. We call them “inactive,” but still Mormon. Grant Hardy made an interesting observation to me at a fireside he was giving here in DC when he said that he thinks the gospel works better when we’re a minority. The local leaders can't be as picky when they have to deal solely with whoever shows up, warms chairs, and fulfills callings. I wonder if those we would term “inactive” still self-identify as Mormon when they live in areas that are not predominately LDS? Is “inactive” a category that really only works in the Mormon corridor?
The values statement above says that “we choose to self-identify as Mormon,” and Joanna talks a lot about that in her remarks. Her field of study is different than mine, though both are in the general realm of “religion,” so I defer to her expertise on matters of self-identity and identity formation. And perhaps it’s just the theologian in me, but I think beliefs and doctrines matter. If anybody can claim to be a Mormon, then the term “Mormon” loses all meaning, even if it’s true that “the distinction between Mormon and non-Mormon is not as bright as many believe.”
If we just want to do good works and help people, what makes us different from the Rotary club? On this subject I very much more agree with Stephen Prothero’s God is not One which basically says that to call all religions the same and water them down to an injunction to “be nice” does a great injustice to all of them. Mormon pioneers did not cross oceans and walk across continents because God merely told them to “be nice.” There was a greater depth of feeling and belief there. Catholic priests don’t give up family relations and take vows of celibacy or poverty because God wants them to “be nice.” Buddhists don’t try to achieve enlightenment by “being nice,” they try to get rid of all desires, a thing diametrically opposed to the monotheistic idea that we should love God first, eternally, and then love our neighbor. Muslims don’t proclaim that there is no God but God, and Muhammed is the messenger of God to “be nice.” There is much more going on in all of these religions. To water them down is to wipe away the boundaries that separate us, and not all boundaries are bad. Identity is based on boundaries. On this issue, I found myself agreeing with Margaret Toscano from one of the other podcasts from the Salt Lake Mormon Stories conference, and completely agreeing with Margaret Toscano is not something that I thought was ever going to happen in my lifetime! (It may never happen again.)
I also absolutely agree with Carolyn that we should all be more inclusive. Being a Mormon doesn’t mean we all need to be “stormtroopers for Jesus” with no individual differences. However, I being inclusive doesn’t mean that labels aren’t valuable or useful. I certainly think the ultimate goal of the church is to create Zion, a people of one heart and one mind, but that does not mean we all need to look like the above cover of Newsweek. And I’m sure there will be differences of opinion even after we’ve created Zion. So “one heart and one mind” doesn’t equal “absolute homogeneity.”
I have a bit of experience with exclusiveness. Our first Mormon Stories meetup here in DC was arranged by one of the founders of Staylds.com. I showed up and had a good time talking with everybody, and as we went around the table introducing ourselves in the foodcourt at Tyson’s Corner in Virginia, I said that I was still a TBM (which in internet bloggernacle parlance means “true believing Mormon”). That earned me a comment from one of the other attendees. “Do we let TBMs come here?” So, the inclusiveness/exclusiveness sword cuts both ways. Not everybody who listens to Mormon Stories is having or has had a crisis of faith. Does that exclude me from the community that’s being built up around the podcasts?
Do Mormons need to be less judgmental? Absolutely. Does that mean that judgments are never acceptable? No. Do Mormons need to be more forgiving of those that are different? Yes. Does that mean that we should not have codes of conduct or articles of faith? No.
I realize that there is no one answer that everybody will agree on as the definition of “Mormon.” Yet there are a few things that I think any definition of “Mormon” must have.
1. An element of self-identity. You must claim the term “Mormon” somehow to be one.
2. A religious element. I’m very uncomfortable with the term becoming something like “Jew.” It needs to be more like “Muslim,” or better yet “Catholic.” This aspect needs to be primary and necessary.
3. An active communal element. There seems to me to be something fundamentally wrong with being a Mormon in isolation. Attend church. Show up for service projects. Post and talk on internet forums. Go to Mormon Stories conferences. Sunstone. MHA. Our biannual Faith and Knowledge Conference for LDS graduate students in religion. Something. Claim the identity and then still be trying to figure out what that means for you in your life! Like Joanna said, we all want to feel useful, and you can’t be useful if you don’t show up in some sense! “Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.”
To this end, I submit MY current definition of the term “Mormon.”
The people who claim the term ‘"Mormon," feel comfortable showing up in church on Sundays at least some of the time because of their religious beliefs, and try to participate in the community are Mormons.
They might not hold temple recommends. They might not be orthodox (whatever that term means in a modern-revelation-based church). They might disagree with the brethren. They might not like their bishop. They might never do their home/visiting teaching.
But if I were their bishop, I wouldn’t tell them they weren’t Mormon. I must be honest, I’m a TBM. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with all its failings (especially the Church’s building committee and the correlation committee, in which I am not alone based on this article from the Church-owned Deseret News) is God’s kingdom, and is led by true prophets, with all of their human fallibilities. So I would try to get these people to come to my understanding, which I believe is the correct one. But if they are showing up and trying to figure it out, that’s fine by me. They are trying to actively be part of the body of Christ, and I would do my best to make things work. We might mythologize the lost sheep, but we need to remember that the shepherd didn’t move the flock to it; he brought it back to the flock.
Perhaps a better way to deal with this whole messy issue of defining what “Mormon” means is simply to add additional adjectives. I’m a “true believing” Mormon. I also like the term “mainstream.” John Dehlin calls himself a “non-correlated” Mormon. My friend in New York uses the term “neo-liberal” Mormon. I also like this idea; it lets the term “Mormon” be broad enough that we don’t exclude people, but allows for enough nuance in the discussion that we still have useful categories. But for now, I’m sticking with my definition.
As always, I reserve the right to change my (possibly wrong) opinion.
TL;DR "Mormon" is a religious term. If it changes to something else, cultural or whatever, we've lost something that we shouldn't have.
Thanks to Brian J., the other Brian J. (haha!), Michael, and Susan for reading drafts of this. Michael’s response was so detailed that I didn’t want to include it in this post, so he gets the honor of the first comment.
Edit: I went back and added one bit to the final definition. The words "because of their religious beliefs" were not in the original post.
25 comments:
Part I
So, I just have a few points. First, though the self-identification as “Catholic” has some elements of a religious meaning, were “Mormon” to go in the same direction I’d be incredibly saddened. My assessment how much of a religious meaning “Catholic” carries is definitely influenced by my time in Argentina – I think anyone that has served in a majority-Catholic country could testify to such phenomena, though. Nearly everyone you meet will tell you they’re “catolico apostolico romano” with incredible fervor when you approach them as an LDS missionary – but even though they use the full name of their church all the time, it’s dubious that many actually understand what it means. I met people who claimed Catholicism and yet professed agnosticism toward or disbelief in Jesus’ resurrection. Even more common, however, were those that treated religion as a sort of superstition. They would get their children baptized religiously (pun wholly intended) – often as a protection for the baby from otherworldly forces and then send them to confirmation classes by themselves because religion is good for children – but not adults. Adherence to sacraments, then, was misunderstood in its purpose when it became people’s sole tie to their faith. They would also have statuettes of the Virgin, but would know nothing about the Bible, and some even prayed to an obscure 19th Century Argentine gaucho named Gauchito Gil, erecting shrines in his honor – and all these were “Catholic”. More often than not, the label “catolico apostolico romano” was trotted out more frequently as missionary repellent, an excuse to not listen, than as a meaningful declaration of faith. In addition, identification as a Catholic was used as a simple religious baseline for public acceptance, and even though few were the devout practitioners they expect their leaders to be. Argentina still resents its own supposedly closet Muslim president (a descendant of Arab immigrants), who they see as having become Catholic out of political expediency and not conviction because only Catholics could be elected president. Before there was Barack Obama, there was Carlos Menem – and all the expectations of faith and practice to which they do not often hold themselves.
(This means no disrespect to actually practicing, believing, orthodox Catholics, of which I met a good number; however, the majority of Catholics I met where as I described above, and indeed I remember having read, for instance, that only about 15-20% of Argentine Catholics regularly attend mass.)
What’s interesting, and really bad in my opinion, is that we would see this attitude spilling over into convert families that went inactive: they would never come to church, ever, until their youngest son or daughter turned eight. Then they’d come – or send the child, or call up the missionaries to teach the child – for just long enough to have the child baptized, and then they’d stop coming. In America, where we have a culture that often sees everything but infant baptism as a profession of personal conviction, we don’t seem to have this as much. Indeed, it is extremely common for inactive members of the LDS faith to cease identifying with the church, and many don’t seem to know they’re on the records somewhere. In other cases, identification with the church is limited to personal history – “Oh yeah, I was a Mormon once, but then I stopped going [insert rationale here]”.
Part II
Now, I see where taking these relationships and self-identifications into account can be interesting in an academic environment, listening to people’s experience with the relatively-more-nebulous-than-we’d-like-to-think phenomenon called “Mormonism”. However, extreme caution should be taken to distinguish between cultural Mormons and religious Mormons – and even distinguishing LDS adherents from that. Not doing so is foolish.
First, I think we would need to delineate some things that would define a religious Mormon, or LDS member more specifically. While Carl brought up the temple recommend questions, we must remember that there are thousands on thousands of practicing, active Mormons who do not have temple recommends. However, I’m quite surprised that another criterion was not raised: the BAPTISMAL interview questions. These are the questions that one must answer in a certain way to become a member of the church, and I could only suppose that the questions about personal belief would still apply afterward, and any slippage therein endangering one’s self-classification as a religious Mormon (the questions about sins and personal worthiness are a greyer area, for there are plenty that still believe the doctrines that have fallen into sins and are on the paths of repentance – however, we must remember that, besides ending one’s self-identification with the church directly, the only way one can leave the church is through transgression and excommunication). To remind people, these questions are the following:
1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
I would even add the last question:
6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?
These are the criteria that deal with personal belief and generic commitment to which anyone has to agree to join the Church, as defined by the organization itself, and they cannot be ignored. Such an institutional framework must somehow count in our evaluation. Another option would be to include people who not only possess a temple recommend but also those that desire one and are working toward that goal: this would include repenting, underage, and recent convert members.
That said, I have several issues with the privileging of the cultural definition of “Mormon”. First is that it puts the spotlight specifically on an outgroup: those who either are affected by Mormon/LDS culture in a non-spiritual way or those who, while religiously LDS, can step back and view Mormon/LDS culture from an academic standpoint. This is problematic in several ways, not the least of which is the fact that its favoring the outgroup ignores the fact that without the ingroup the outgroup would not exist at all; further, it contributes to an othering of the ingroup, which arguably should be at the heart, or at least a main feature, of the definition of ‘Mormon’, the which othering can foster feelings of resentment or distrust. This is exacerbated by the fact that a large part of the outgroup coalesces around mutual negative feelings of dissatisfaction, criticism, or even belittlement of those in the ingroup. Besides that, the extent of the region in which cultural Mormons can even exist is extremely small: it consists of either people in the Western US, Mormons who have some discrepancy in belief that leads them into some level of not-full activity, or ex-Mormons. Elsewhere in the world it would be difficult to find such people, while you can indeed find active Mormons with different unique cultures. In such circumstances, relying on a cultural definition of ‘Mormon’ is quite limiting, and in putting the locus of the definition of a community in the sort of oppositional framework that often characterizes the outgroup, it risks alienating religious Mormons and becoming a cesspool of victimhood and criticism instead of a wellspring that could sustain a vibrant and growing community.
An example would be the Yale LDSSA. In past years, the emphasis of the LDSSA has been overwhelmingly on the side of cultural Mormonism, and I definitely understand why: there are people who identify with the Church that don’t feel comfortable with the religious aspects for whatever reason, and emphasizing cultural Mormon identity allows them to participate and contribute without feeling pressured or threatened. Spiritual sustenance was left to the local singles branch. However, this meant that the organization was held together by a very loose web of friendships, and when other social relationships conflicted, people stopped coming to our pretty much secular activities and discussions (and the activities dwindled in number, partly because of less demand) in favor of more valuable, immediate friendships, ones that were not based around endless comparisons of Utah and Yale. While I recognize the good intentions that gave rise to this policy, I think that in the end it was essentially flawed. With our exclusive emphasis on inclusion, we had forgotten the glue that held us together, however loosely and however controversially: the teachings and doctrines of the LDS church that gave rise to the culture in the first place. To do that would be like trying to study American culture without acknowledging the contributions of the cultures of the nations worldwide whose members settled the United States over the centuries.
In short, we cannot accept any definition of ‘Mormon’ that marginalizes those that view it as a religious belief and a way of life. To do so is to blind oneself to the fount of all we’re studying and talking about: it’s like preaching Christianity without the Atonement at its center, or, in the parlance of Narnia, trimming Aslan’s claws to make him a “tame lion”. However, anyone that has read C. S. Lewis’ books knows that such is a futile and destructive enterprise: that religion is not “safe” or easily wished away. It must be confronted in dialogue for what it is, for its power and contradictions and differences and ingroups and outgroups. Only then will academic disciplines of Mormon studies and even criticism of the culture actually have any effect.
Carl,
As someone who identifies as a gay Mormon (clearly not a generally accepted definition by mainstream orthodoxy) I really appreciated this post.
Why? Because recently I spoke with my bishop who unlike the currently fictional (but hopefully not for long) Bishop Carl Cranney he doesn't seem to be okay with me having my personally held contrasting beliefs, particularly when they come into conflict with his view of orthodoxy. You and I can talk about that experience more offline but as it happened recently is may shade my talking points.
I noticed that your definition and post (purposely?) left out excommunicated members. How do they fall in with the definition you set forth. If an Ex'd member feels comfortable at Church and participates in the community-side of Mormonism are they then considered "A Mormon?"
I do enjoy the that you do not condense Mormonism into blind belief as some do (as famously satirized by The Book of Mormon Musical)
In your institute class I recall a push to make us realize that while the Bible was historically inaccurate (What day was Christ Crucified again?), the main point was the doctrinal principle trying to be taught from the author of that gospel was still valid, important, and in fact the entire point! I think that there is strength in having a similar approach to defining who/what is a Mormon.
I think it is more important to describe ourselves by our actions than by our words. Is an organization whose leaders feel comfortable going to Church once in a while but overall are seeking to completely change the Church (see Affirmation) still to be considered Mormon? Are members of these groups still to be considered Mormon if they fit your criteria and then say that so&so is on an 'evil path' by getting their endowments re-instated?
Or in contrast, how about the non-correlated Mormon who uses her doubt to strengthen others? Or the Gay Mormon who shares his experience of coming out as part of his testimony of the power of God's love. Are they not Mormons even if they are not participating in the community?
I say these things not to invoke argument but as a contrasting voice in some areas and supporting in others (I trust you to know my tone well enough Carl). I think that it is crucial that we have these discussions and wish we could have talked about this at 3AM along with question of how the infinite works in the power of the infinite atonement.
Bravo, Carl, on your excellent discussion. I have to say, though, that Michael's last paragraph of his last post encapsulates perfectly how I feel.
I found the MS podcast interesting as well. I haven't thought this through to the extent the two of you have, but here are a couple quick thoughts. Sorry if they are too simplistic for what you're looking for.
In my mind, there is no doubt that there is such a thing as a cultural Mormon as distinguished from a religious Mormon. The fact that you can't nail down an exact definition doesn't change this. The way Mormonism has evolved makes it nigh unto impossible to tease out motivations for why Mormons do what they do and believe what they believe, especially for "TBM"s who have grown up in the BoM belt. But we all acknowledge that there are elements of BoM belt, mainstream Mormonism that are distinctly cultural, not religious. I think part of our spiritual journey as Mormons ought to include learning to separate these two ideas as we learn to understand our personal relationship to God. This is a personal journey and different people will come to different conclusions as to where that divide is and how they live according to that conclusion. For this reason, I say if anyone wants to be called a Mormon, or considers themselves Mormon, I'm fine with it, even if their definition is different from my own.
I also think Mormons often use the demonym "Mormon" as suits the present purposes, sometimes in ways that are not kind (not accusing the current discussion of this). It can be used to include (and thus condemn) people that don't want to be included (e.g. the "rebellious") as well as to shun those that wish to be included in the community (e.g. your LDS Yale friend). It's not all just about being "nice", of course. But when it comes to a monicker that isn't really central to the end game of my (personal) religion, I prefer to stay on the liberal side of this discussion... "You call yourself a Mormon? Cool. I guess as we get to know each other better I'll understand what that means to you." Not sure it is as likely that I'd find an endowed member who is keeping their covenants that says "I'm not a Mormon", but part of me really wants to!
Carl,
This is very provocative. My great grandfather was a minister of the local Congregational church, a very good one. He would give half of what he had to any parishioner who needed it, and ride a bike rather than a fancy carriage to visit them, as far as the surrounding towns, and raise a large garden so as not to become a burden on the congregation. The last minister of that church and his wife visited my dad and stepmother often during their last days, and have done much in many ways to help our family over the years.
What I am leading up to is there are two sides to being a “Mormon.” One side is the importance of being a good Christian, by which I mean living the teachings Christ as taught in the “Sermon on the Mount” and “cleaving” unto charity. This is not altogether being altruistic. By this I mean that we will all meet again in the next life, sit down in the great “theater of the gods” and have the movies of our lives replayed and critiqued. The kind words and deeds rendered will be remembered forever. Those we have helped will be ever grateful. We likewise will love and feel kindly towards those who have given us friendly service during this sometimes “lone and dreary world.”
The second side of being a Mormon is receiving the saving ordinances. The power of godliness becomes available through these ordinances, which include baptism, laying on of hands for the gift of the holy ghost, taking the sacrament, and the sealing ordinances of the temple. Without them our progress is blocked; there are bounds beyond which we cannot pass. With them the future opens up for ever and ever, freely, without compulsion.
I conclude by saying that there are good people in spite of their religion, and there are bad people in spite of their religion. There are good and bad Mormons. There are good and bad atheists. I have good, wonderful neighbors who attend the local Congregational church. On the other hand there are hypocritical Mormons, who act more like “scribes and Pharisees” than Christians.
As “converted” Latter-day Saints, we need both to be good Christians and to receive the saving ordinances.
(Anne Peffer) This is a great blog post. I'm glad that Carl wrote it up. The shared values are definitely a draft open for discussion.
I want to share some of my thoughts about the shared values. None of what I'm writing is meant to be at all directed towards Carl, though. This post is really nothing more than an emotional reaction to a few of his words. It's probably a good idea for me to state that I'm kinda in a down mood today, and, I guess that partially as a result of my mood, this particular point in Carl's blog made me sad:
"I am extremely uncomfortable with any definition of Mormon that doesn’t include some kind of religious belief."
It's silly for me to feel sad. I guess it's just that I'm a Mormon and I know it. No, I can't accept BOM historicity. No, I don't think JS was any more inspired than anyone else. No, I don't accept Mormon priesthood authority. I suppose I'm not all atheist, but my beliefs don't align with traditional Mormonism.
That said, for as long as I feel like I want to claim them, my people are the Mormon people. I don't want to be melodramatic, but I have ancestors who died in the Haun's Mill Massacre. I'm a 6th generation Mormon who was born and raised in Salt Lake City. I was baptized in the tabernacle on Temple Square. I can try to erase Mormonism from my identity, but my childhood memories are so replete with Mormon culture that, for me, doing so would be impossible.
I understand that for many the beliefs I do and don't hold in my head are important indicators as to whether or not I can call myself a Mormon. I don't care. My beliefs are mine. I don't want to be told that I must choose between my Mormonism and my right to think freely. The world is full of people who try to tell me what I can and can't be. I prefer, instead, to decide who I am. I'm a Mormon.
I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of good reasons for people like me to reject their Mormon identities. I have respect for those who decide to turn their backs on Mormonism once their beliefs change. I suppose there are some who might say that my "inactivity" proves that I have turned my back on Mormonism, too. Maybe I have. OTOH, here I am saying that I was born a Mormon and that no one can take that away from me. Go figure.
I wish there were a way we could culturally move past the idea that one's beliefs determine whether or not he or she can belong. Our thoughts are our own. My thoughts are my own. One thing I 'think' is that the things I do and don't believe seem to be a lot more important to people who are trying to define me than they could possibly could be to any omniscient, omnipotent god. Sending people like me the message that we can't belong because we don't believe is standard thinking, but, IMO, is pretty insupportable.
(Again, I'm not directing my comments towards Carl or insinuating in any way that he intended any particular personal message. The above is just an emotional reaction to the concept that there can't be any definition of Mormonism that doesn't include some kind of religious belief.)
Thanks for your post. I haven't thought long and hard enough about this topic to post a thoughtful response, but I did want to comment to let you know that I appreciate your thoughts on this topic.
Carl,
I really enjoyed and appreciated this post (especially the term 'stormtroopers for Jesus'--is there a T-shirt?). I completely agree with your definition of 'Mormon,' and I don't always agree your writing, though it's nearly always interesting and illuminating.
I would submit another adjective to describe Mormon, a category I fall into though few know it: recovering-addict Mormon.
Though I think it's safe to say we all need Christ to save us and must sacrifice appetites and desires, I can think of no other group with the same desperate need for immediate and daily intercession or such a profound inner transformation. Frankly, I didn't get any of it--the Atonement, personal relation with deity, consecration--until I started attending addiction recovery programs. So, in a way, I don't think I was really a Mormon in any way that spiritually mattered until I started working the 12 steps.
In practical terms, I completely agree with your definition. In spiritual terms, a Mormon needs to be converted. Southern Baptists call it being born again, to them a one-time, one-way ticket to salvation. But I know I could lose salvation any day. (And in small ways, I lose it every day.) So, to me, conversion is more like a one-day-at-a-time labor of love.
Perhaps one way of looking at the "religious belief" element from a different angle is this: Religious belief can be different, so long as there is some desire for it.
I can kind of see a valid criticism if a person believed in nothing at all, but still claimed an identify as a member of a religious community. I am thinking of pure nihilism (beyond atheism). But there really are few people who go that far down the rabbit hole.
What I see many people saying here is they just don't see the religion the same anymore. Their perspective has changed dramatically through an experience of faith crisis. The friend in NYC Carl mentioned still attended Church, was *open* to the possibility of JS and the Church being inspired, BUT no longer internally supported the party line.
But the key factor there is -- open to ideas and people being inspired, or finding them inspiring (even if it is now in a much different, less fundamental and attached way).
I find myself in that boat, very similar to your friend in NYC. I love talking about Mormonism. I don't really think most of it literally true (if any), but I think it is a super inspiring way of approaching the world around us. I want to be a part of my local ward, both socially AND even still on a religious level. It all just has a much different meaning to me now. I am not a literal believer, but I still believe in what they are doing. I also have to acknowledge, for my own internal honesty, that literal belief seems to work really really good for a lot of people that I care about. It just works for them. Fine. I am happy for them. We can still commune within the religion together, at least as far as I am concerned.
Hey Carl - very interesting post. I really enjoyed the read. I don't really have much to add - but I do want to say that I have been on a journey of redefining for myself what it means to be Mormon and have found a lot of comfort from podcasts and interviews at Mormon Stories and especially from those like Carol Lynne Pearson (I really love CLP - she is an amazing person). I'd love to hear more thoughts of yours about this issue sometime - keep posting!
Nice blog post! I wanted to join in on the short comment bandwagon and say: I was Mormon, now I am not. Let's go hiking! I only associate with Mormon Stories mormons because they aren't really mormons. Shhh don't tell them that! They would only respectfully disagree. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
This lengthy blog entry reminds me of the evangelical Christians' unwillingness to "allow" Mormons to apply the label "Christian" to themselves, an attitude that really irks Mormons.
No matter what variation of a definition Carl uses to define the label "Mormon," the definition excludes someone who has a case for self-identifying as a Mormon.
I wonder what motivation is behind the unwillingness to allow the term "Mormon" to function similarly to "Jew" or “catolico apostolico romano.” Why does this "sadden" Michael Haycock? Why does Carl wrestle so mightily to find the ideal definition that will include those he personally wants to include but exclude those he personally wants to exclude?
I think it's disingenuous to claim that "Mormon" can't be used similarly to "Jew," that there is no genetic component to being Mormon. The double life that many unorthodox Mormons live to avoid the social and, more important, family ostracization, or the great anguish the no-longer-TBM experiences who goes public and does experience the ostracization, testifies otherwise. Mormonism is very much a culture, a tradition, an inherited community as well as a religion, much as being Jewish or Catholic is.
If Mormons--those who do obsess over the definiton so they can exclude who they want--would be more of the Christians they claim to be (that in a turn-about-is-fair-play situation, other Christians want to exclude Mormons from), perhaps this anguish or fear of anguish at being perceived as unorthodox might go away. The bitterness that disaffected Mormons feel, that TBM's love to blame on "losing the Spirit" but in reality is the anguish over being rejected by one's foundational community and/or family, might disappear.
My previous comment is based on a definition of "Christian" that is not universally accepted (if the behavior of some Christians is any indication), yet was uttered by Jesus himself: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
The very act of wrestling with definitions of "Mormon" that include/exclude those whom the wrestler wishes to include/exclude seems to me to be a violation of Christ's definition of "Christian." Is your experience as a Mormon really impacted all that much by someone else self-identifying as a Mormon who has a different experience with Mormonism than yours? What is your motivation for wanting such a well-defined definition in the first place? Where does this desire to exclude come from?
So -- good to hear there is room for anarchist Mormons after all.
I think it's easy to get into a game of trying to judge other people's belief efforts and levels, but when it comes down to it, if anyone has a desire to take any sort of good they can get out of identifying/participating as a Mormon, I'm all for it. It's certainly better than having them walk out the door. I'm pretty unorthodox in my views these days (I really don't try to define them too much), and I'm active every Sunday, living Mormonism to the best of my ability given my beliefs. I welcome anyone who so desires to join me.
To D. Mıchael Martindale:
I thought I clarified by means of example why I would not want 'Mormon' to become comparable to 'catolico apostolico romano': namely, that in many circumstances I encountered, it was not so much a part of one's identity as it was simply a socially accepted fact or a way to avoid questions of identity. It had little to no effect on a person's behavior or beliefs, and only incidental relation to other parts of their lives. It had nearly become a meaningless label.
Also, Carl is not saying that there is no inherited aspect to being Mormon, only that there is no Mormon *race*. You wouldn't describe someone whose sole contact with the LDS Church was one convert, inactive grandparent; but such can occur in Judaism.
Disclaimer: I am probably what you'd call a TBM. But I make it a point to not be part of any group, because aligning with a group can have the effect of taking away your own accountability to think for yourself.
With that said, if you want a category for me, then know that my beliefs (and knowledge) discovered through my own efforts would put me
with what the 'TBMs' probably believe. (Not necessarily how you may stereotype them in action, however.)
I believe trying to define 'Mormon' may be a waste of time. As so many people here have articulated, the definition has inclusive and exclusive components and therefore would never make everyone anyone happy.
I am also a seeker of truth. This means I don't care about making people feel inclusive or exclusive - this, I feel, should not be the issue. The issue is truth and maybe more so: honesty.
Honesty with one's self about religious issues is of supreme importance:
- Are your beliefs based on personal experiences and knowledge that you have sought honestly with your efforts?
- Are your beliefs based on what other people have told you?
- Are your beliefs based on cultural customs?
I find that if I can answer the first question in the affirmative, then I am on the right track to being honest with my religious beliefs.
Are you?
Once you have decided to be honest, then petty things like ostracization and exclusion don't become an issue when they happen to you.
Maybe the true test of whether you are Mormon is this: Would you be willing to be baptized again? Which of course translates to do you still take the sacrament. If you take the bread and water no matter what you believe then you are a religious Mormon (at least for that week). If not, then you probably need to append some adjective to the front of the word IMHO.
I think anyone who ***has been*** an official member, or quasi official member (e.g., ‘Born in the Covenant’ to practicing, official Mormon parents) of the church past a certain threshold of participation, but now are not, do not, or feel they cannot classify themselves as being members of the church any longer, in other words, at least desiring to be the kind of Mormon the Brethren (and the Lord) would have them be, then at the very least that person still has been ***Mormonized*** to some degree.
That “threshold” is what determines this. For example, let’s say you were baptized as a kid because your non-Mormon parents gave some Mormon missionaries permission to baptize you. They weren’t interested in joining the church, but thought it might keep you off the streets if you became a member. However, once those particular missionaries were transferred and no other member took an interest in you, which resulted in your total involvement with the Mormon church lasting only two months, and that was thirty-seven years ago, then clearly you were not ‘Mormonized’. There can be no reasonable assumption that any kind of affinity with the church crystallized in your psyche. Yet for those who are fully cognizant of once having been a practicing, believing member, then to be sure, their psyches have been tattooed -- they have been ‘Mormonized’, and it will take a certain amount of ‘something’ to totally eradicate that tattoo. That ‘something’ may be the passing of lot of time with total avoidance of any and all types of interaction with anything Mormon. Or it may be a very conscious decision to the tune, “I’m out of here, and I’m not the kind of person who ever looks back.” But I think most former members, or participating, but non-believing members, or anyone who has passed a certain ‘threshold’ of active participation in the Mormon church can perhaps agree somewhat with what I am saying.
I think some distinction needs to be made between those who are honest seekers of the truth and those whose beliefs are sufficiently unorthodox or inauthentic to fulfill the Pauline prophecy: "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
Carl,
Excellent post and, as being your friend in NYC how attends Church but is, as you describe, mostly agnostic about many Mormon-specific truth claims I very much appreciate your analysis and commentary on this subject.
I believe Jan Shipps was right on when she described Mormonism as a NEW religious tradition rather than a simple offshoot of Christianity. Add to this the fact that we, as Mormons, have such a rich heritage *completely separate from Mormon truth claims* and we end up with a religion that truly defines us in a variety of different ways.
For me, Mormonism has been such an integral part of shaping who I am as a human being that I can't imagine leaving it behind. As such, I will always self-identify as a Latter-day Saint.
However, I understand that others may be uncomfortable with this my self-identification and, as one choosing to live as a Latter-day Saint among my family members and congregants who are both more orthoprax and orthodox I completely appreciate a certain level of discomfort that they may have. That is why I am not an advocate of my particular views and when some LDS friends and family members approach me with questions/concerns about LDS history/doctrine etc.... I'm always sensitive to their deeply held and incredibly important personal beliefs. It is not my place to try and sway people one way or another on specific truth claims. However, I do believe that my responsibility is to provide service and comfort in any way I can.
Seth
www.sethpayne.com
I should add that I ALWAYS describe myself as a "Liberal Mormon" to ensure that they understand my personal beliefs and practices are outside the "Mainstream" LDS Church.
Having said that I am a very big advocate for the mainstream LDS Church and, as somewhat of an "outsider" now, it seems that my perspective is seen (rightly or wrongly) as a bit more objective because I am able to tout the incredible nature of LDS culture and practice while at the same time acknowledging some of its oddities (the obsession with clean-shaven men, for example ;) )
Seth
I am curious as to why people would like to identify themselves as a "Mormon" if they do not believe any of the gospel that is presented as the word of God as seen by the Mormon religion. If it is simply an identity issue, then I don't think it matters much either way. I am happy to think that people would be interested, intrigued, open, neutral, anything positive, questioning in their views of Mormon doctrine, but I am unsure if there is any benefit to a person who knows the doctrine and spends their entire life rejecting it but calls himself/herself Mormon. I believe in inclusivity, I really believe that. However, I don't believe that I am in a position to tell God how his church is to be run, which beliefs in the gospel are true, or who can call themselves a Mormon. God is wise, I am weak. God is all-knowing and I am very limited. I simply believe that his gospel is before us, open to questions, but unchanging. I think the ultimate good from being a Latter Day Saint comes when you embrace the gospel but I do think people vary greatly in their methods and timeline. Any principle lived, in my experience, is a blessing to the individual. Because somebody is not living every doctrine does not mean they are not Mormon. Still, I feel that just because somebody chooses to not live major gospel doctrines, does not change the fact that they are true and God has decreed them as law. God will be the judge of whether we served him truly or whether we professed to served him but were not living vital commandments. The doctrines are what make a Latter Day Saint "not of the world". If a person is seeking for truth, if they are opening their heart to it, if they are trying, they are on the right path. We are all on the path to perfection, not perfect here. However, I don't think I could claim to be Mormon but fight against its doctrines. I'm all or nothing, I suppose. If it's true, it's true. I don't feel that God overlooks things. No matter the intense difficulty in following any of His laws, we will find greater happiness therein than in following the dictates of our own choosing. We are free to choose. That's the basis of the wonderful plan. We can choose to obey or not to obey, but we can't choose to only obey what we want to obey and expect that God will disregard the commandments we don't choose to live. God is more loving than people think, well at least I think. But he is God, our judge. If we profess to be of his fold, surely we would want to follow his commands. Being a Latter Day Saint has as much meaning as we give it. Some people call themselves many things, but "by their fruits ye shall know them". No matter the label society chooses, we, ourselves must sometimes accept that God knows more than we do. I feel like we would all do well to think freely but to be proud to live all the commandments God has given and realize that His opinion of who we are is what matters.
Post a Comment