A number of people have made interesting comments. I’ll make a general response here.
By trying to set a minimal definition of what it means to be Mormon, I’m not talking about trying to create social boundaries and drive away people. I welcome all. All suffer periods of doubts. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Lord knows I have.
I’m talking about trying to create an intellectually coherent meaning for the term Mormon. The alternative is to say that Mormon can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, with the result that any discussion of what Mormonism means becomes a morass of incoherent assertions. To refuse to create a meaningful definition of Mormon is to intellectually abdicate, and by default make the term Mormon meaningless, and therefore discussion pointless. If an atheist can say “I’m a Mormon” then anyone can say he’s a Mormon.
So, a refusal to clarify the issue must necessarily result in confusion. So I came up with my four minimum beliefs. I didn’t make these four points up arbitrarily. I chose them because I think they create clarity. And intellectually open and forthright debate requires clarity, not obscurity.
I thought your points were well made. I did read both Bob Smiths response, and Elder Hollands talk that it was based on and while there is variability in opinions about what a “good Mormon” is, they both agreed that those that attack the church either covertly or overtly, would not fall under that definition.
It might be better to define what Mormonism is than to define who Mormons are via formulation of a mini-creed or loyalty oath. Any one of us might find himself accused of being on the high road to apostasy simply because we don’t interpret the Scriptures in the particular way that our accuser prefers.. I don’t like the specter of good Mormons pointing fingers at each other, as they sometimes do on the MDDB. Moreover, we need to be civil and tolerant, even toward discourteous anti-Mormons.
I’m not talking about loyalty oaths. I’m talking about logical coherence and clarity of thought and meaning of words. Bob, do you think there is any idea that one must affirm to be considered a Mormon? Or is the term so broad that anyone can claim to be a Mormon simply because they say they are, even though they are an atheist? Isn’t that simply enforcing a definition of the term Mormon in a different way?
In other words, by refusing to try to formulate a logically coherent definition, we in fact are accepting a default of no definition whatsoever, which renders coherent discourse impossible.
What role do covenants play in your definition? It seems to me that the making and keeping of covenants is far more important to LDS identity than a list of thirteen or four beliefs.
I’m talking about belief only. There are other things one must DO as well, of course.
I think that anyone who could both honestly define themselves as “Mormon” and as an “atheist” simultaneously would have sufficiently nuanced definitions of those words that they would escape the definitions of any other criteria one could dream up. I like Ostler’s notion of orthopraxis – if you honestly pass a temple recommend interview and/or a baptismal interview, you are Mormon. You have already been interviewed by a judge in Israel (at least for the temple recommend) and if he is satisfied you are a Mormon, you are a Mormon. There is not much more one can say about it in my opinion.
Well, one can’t pass a temple recommend interview without believing the four things I mention.
So we need them because…… ?
This topic was on my mind again last night, primarily in terms of needing clear definitions of terms for clear communication to be possible. I see Bill has now made this point better than I would have. While someone may want to define “Christian” as accepting the credal assertions, and I may want to define it differently, until we understand what we each mean by the word, we’ll simply be talking past one another. Same goes for “Mormon.” Bill’s list isn’t binding in any way. But once we engage in discourse and use the term, his list becomes a useful definition that anyone can understand–whether they agree with it or not.
And that’s all that it is meant to do. Try to bring some clarity for intelligible discussion.