The Excluded Middle in Religion

Bruce,

Thanks for providing a definition of believing vs. cultural Mormons. This is very helpful, and I am sure virtually all believing Latter-day Saints and leaders completely agree.

I hope you forward a copy to the office of the First Presidency for their consideration when reviewing stake president’s recommendations for new bishops, when considering modifications to the belief questions in the temple recommend, and when next revising the standards for whom may serve in which calling.

I think it will be particularly helpful to Church leaders that you have considerately even named names of those who fit within the category of cultural Mormons.

DavidH,

I’m going to ignore the fact that you completely ignored what I actually wrote and twisted it to say things I didn’t say. (For example, equating the realities of obviously accepted categories to the need to remove people’s membership.)

Instead, I’d like to sincerely ask you why you are so concerned that there is, in fact, a pretty clear line between believers of a religion and people who are just culturally involved. I’d also like to know why this fact offends you when I point it out.

I’d also like to know why you didn’t tackle the obvious problem that some people are dishonest about their beliefs and that this is… well… dishonest.

David H,

I do have one other question for you. You said “I hope you forward a copy to the office of the First Presidency for their consideration when reviewing stake president’s recommendations for new bishops.”

I take it from this comment (in response to my point of view that someone that doesn’t believe in any of the unique truth claims of the LDS Church shouldn’t be a Bishop) that you sincerely believe that a person that *disbelieves* my list above *should be okay to be an LDS Bishop.* Is that correct? (Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.)

If this is correct, can you please explain this further? That doesn’t make sense to me.

I would think that it’s a foregone conclusion that from the top to stake president that it would be considered a mistake to call a Bishop that, for example, didn’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon or didn’t believe in Priesthood authority, or didn’t accept the LDS scriptures as true (say on God’s physical nature).

This seems so basic to me, it’s hard to see how you could disagree with it.

Bruce, I wasn’t sure if this comment goes better here or on the previous post “What is Religion?”.

You touch on something that Pres Uchtdorf talked about in his recent CES talk. Questioning versus Doubt.

It’s one thing to question, even question publicly. But it’s another to publicly doubt.

A question can be framed in way to mean “I don’t understand. Someone please help me to understand [such and such]. How do you folks resolve this apparent friction, contradiction, or question? How do you handle this matter that I’m currently having difficulty with?”

However, Doubt is when the speaker comes down on the non-believing side of the issue or question. “I don’t believe that [such and such].”

Questioning is when a person says “I don’t know” or “I don’t know what to believe about that.” Doubt is saying “I don’t believe that…”

Belief, or faith, can mean leaving certain items, even a lot of items, up on that “shelf” where one puts things that they hope are true, but don’t know how to explain, categorize, or synthesize with other beliefs, observed facts, or assumptions.

Doubt is the unwillingness to leave those things on the shelf, preferring to dump them completely rather than leave them under the “I just don’t know (yet)” category.

I do have respect for those who say “I don’t have a testimony of such-and-such, but I still hope such-and-such is true.”

I think I share your frustration with those who seem to refuse to leave things on their “I don’t know (yet)” shelf, and who prefer to toss things rather than leave things on that shelf.

In the past, I’ve called them (or their public statements of how they’ve dumped that item) as “faith dampening.” They’re not actively telling others to disbelieve that item as they do, but they’ve come out and said “I disbelieve that, and here’s why.”

I believe that kind of public statement tends to discourage others from leaving things on that shelf. It seems to say that if you can’t get a Spirit-borne testimony of something, and you can’t logically/historically/archaelogically support it, then its okay to just chuck it out the window.

“For me to accept the argument that there is no difference, other than degree, between Cultural Mormons and Believing Mormons is to remove my ability to even think of Agellius as not being a Mormon.”

Excellent point! I’ll have to use that some time. Although, one problem we have with Cafeteria Catholics is that they claim to believe the essentials of the Catholic faith, but only after having redefined what is essential so as to make it palatable.

Thus, they will say they believe in papal infallibility, but also claim that the popes have authorized Catholics to dissent from papal teaching so long as they really, really are having a hard time believing it. Which brings up a puzzle of sorts: If official papal teaching is that dissent from papal teaching is allowable (which it’s not), wouldn’t that mean you are allowed to dissent from the teaching that says dissent is allowable? But what would it mean to dissent from the permissibility of dissent? A person inclined to rebel in that manner would find himself undermining his own dissent, since he would have to deny that it is permissible to dissent, yet in doing so would be dissenting!

Bruce,

I’m going to ignore the fact that you completely ignored what I actually wrote and twisted it to say things I didn’t say.

Welcome to the club. I have said that people you describe as conservative and orthodox have publicly expressed their opposition to public and official statements from church headquarters. Do you disbelieve me? If you’re going to hint that I am a liar you ought to be a big enough man to actually do it and not hide behind some lame-o who calls himself Vader.

While you and this Vader person are amusing yourselves making jokes about Sunstroke and Diaphog, we can observe your conservative, orthodox crowd openly claiming that Michael Otterson’s public statement last week was nothing more than giving in to PC and also openly comparing church leaders to Nazi appeasers. It is offensive as hell and deeply insulting. You can make excuses for it, rationalize it, and call it conservative orthodoxy all you want, but I and the rest of the church will call it what it is: howling-at-the-moon insanity.

Mark,

For the record:

I am not a sock puppet for any other contributor to this board. I do not post under my true name because it has been made very plain to me by my employer that making myself noticeable on the Internet will have negative consequences for my career. Given the necessity of pseudonymous posting, I also try to have some fun with it. Lame? De gustibus non disputandem est.

I stand by my low opinion of Dialog and Sunstone. However, I do not believe anything I have written here could reasonably be taken to be supportive of “conservative”, “orthodox” Mormons who compare Church leaders to Chamberlain.

I am not much of a Bloggernacle reader, as it turns out, and have not actually read any self-proclaimed orthodox Mormon blogger make these statements. I’m sure it happens, but none of my fellow contributors here have made such statements. Like you, I would find such statements offensive and insulting, FWIW, and would refuse to excuse them, rationalize them, or label them as any kind of orthodox. “Howling-at-the-moon insane” might not be my phrase of choice; I’d probably use “off the deep end” instead. But it works for me.

Now, do you have a relevant point to make, or do you just lob grenades for chuckles and grins?

Another great post Bruce. Can you shoot me an email?

Mark Brown,

I used your comment as a jumping off point to discuss what I saw as a legitimate issue. I, in no way, hinted that you are a liar.

If you wish to send me links I’ll happily give my honest opinions. You may find that, when you get specific, I agree with you entirely. I may well feel that the specific people you are talking about have crossed that line that I mention in the above post. i.e. ‘Now I suppose, if taken to an extreme, these kinds of disagreement could become one and the same. If someone not only rejected an LDS leader’s stance on immigration but also decided it meant there was no such thing as priesthood authority, then these two rejections have become one and the same. But for the moment, let’s assume we’re not talking about such an extreme.’

If I inappropriately read into your post the rest, I sincerely apologize. But I’m grateful for the chance to bring up this incredibly important point nonetheless.

J. Max Wilson,

How do I do that?

Agellius says: “But what would it mean to dissent from the permissibility of dissent?”

ROFL. Great comment, Agellius. I’m glad I didn’t hurt your feelings by calling you someone that doesn’t believe in Mormonism. I knew I was walking the offensive line there daring to point out that you, as a Catholic, aren’t Mormon.

Bookslinger,

Excellent comments.

I think we are talking about different thing — though I agree with you.

You’re talking about how, as a member of a faith community, one can question without causing problems for others. Very valid point and I recommnd it to people feeling questions about God but that don’t want to sow doubt.

But I’m talking about people that have decided “I disbelieve all the unique truth claims of the LDS Church” but actively pass themselves off as “I’m a believer just like you” for the sake of intentionally causing problems by slipping under people’s natural defenses.

I used John Dehlin (I could easily give many other good examples, but could also give some bad examples I’m afraid) as an example of someone that handles this situation correctly. I have no issue with such people and really wouldn’t expect them (as someone that doesn’t believe the in the LDS unique truth claims) to “question” instead of “doubt.”

As far as I’m concerned, they have every right to “doubt away” since they are upfront about how their religious beliefs are and don’t try to pass themselves off as “I’m a believer in Mormonism, just like you, so you can trust me long enough for me to try to cause you to doubt your beliefs.”

They’ll be upfront on what they agree with (say belief in a supreme being) and what they disbelieve (say unique priesthood authority or historicity.)

They also know that in Church is the wrong place to sow doubt and they refuse to do so in that setting.

Mark, just in case I misunderstood what you were saying, I’ve added an update above for you.

Bruce, sorry my satire may have come across as offensive.

I do not think I misread what you wrote. But correct me where I have misunderstood. Please note that I did not claim that you were advocating that cultural Mormons be kicked out of the Church.

You did say that your definition of “cultural” versus “believing” should be used in determining whether (not to mention names) John Dehlin should be approved as a bishop. To my knowledge (I am not privy to the bishop recommendation form), I do not think the distinction/test you advocate is on that form (having a temple recommend likely is a requirement, but see below). And so I suggested that you should forward your definition and approach to the First Presidency to include in their consideration if and when a stake president nominates John Dehlin (or someone else you consider cultural rather than believing).

Of course, the Church, itself, has a definition of “believing Mormon” as a prerequisite to have a temple recommend. The temple recommend questions do not require express assent to most of the truth claims you list. That is why I suggested you forward your list to the First Presidency so that they can consider revising the temple recommend questions to conform to your definition of what it means to be a believing Mormon.

Or perhaps there are indeed three categories of Mormons– Mormons who do not meet the belief requirements for a temple recommend (“cultural Mormons”), Mormons who have sufficient belief to hold a temple recommend but not necessarily to meet your definition (“temple recommend cultural Mormons”) , and believing Mormons who meet your approach above (“truly believing Mormons”).

By the way, for what it is worth although I do not claim knowledge without doubt, I do assent and accept and even believe the essential truth claims listed in your post.

And I think if a person has enough faith to honestly hold a temple recommend but has doubts or reservations about some of the Church’s other teachings (even those on your list), and if a stake president feels inspired to call that person as bishop, I would be perfectly fine with it.

Bruce, you’re right, I’ve brought up a different aspect of the bloggernacle. If I may try to tie the two together, a potential for damage to faith exists when a questioning member encounters a disbelieving member, and the disbeliever attempts to answer the questions with, what in effect is, “Oh, you don’t have to believe that to be a good member. I don’t believe it, and I’m a member.”

If that’s the danger that you’re decrying, then I’m totally with you.

Or, as someone who has been in several bishropics has told me: “You don’t get excommunicated for personal apostasy (disbelieving). You get excommunicated if you try to get others to apostacize (or disbelieve.)” That’s something that some of the September 6 and their supporters don’t seem to have grasped. Disbelieve all you want, but when what you publish sows disbelief among believers, that crosses some kind line.

Another monkey-wrench in the whole relationship of believing/disbelieving, believers/disbelievers, members/non-members, is that the public meetings of the church (the Sunday block, firesides, Youth activities, stake and general conferences) are open to the public, as per the Lord’s statements to that effect in 3rd Nephi and Section 46.

In fact, that’s what people in my situation, ex-members, come in under. So we have to remember that disbelieving members, disbelieving non-members, and even believing non-members are to be welcomed with open arms.

But there is an unspoken qualification there, which is: that the non-member (or disbelieving member) is expected to behave and speak with decorum and appropriateness.

2nd point: this whole topic is made the more twisted (and perhaps insidious) when the disbelief is made out to be the result of scholarship or intellectualism. Such posturing on the part of disbelievers has a precedent: Those who split from Brigham Young and remained in Nauvoo and Missouri claimed to be more educated and more intelligent and more upper-class than the larger group that followed Brigham Young out West. I recently read such a claim on the Strangite web site, snubbing their nose at those who followed Brigham.

3rd point: some of the PC-minded participants in the bloggernacle appear to be trying to shove a whole PC agenda behind the compassionate statements of the Brethren. IE, they speak as if the decision to issue temple recommends and mission calls regardless of immigration status equates to a call for open borders. Or as if a call for non-discrimination in employment and housing indicates a softening on the stance against same-sex marriage.

The bishop or Stake Pres who issues a temple recommend to an illegal, may also be an employer who, in his own effort to obey the law, may have to refuse employment to illegals who apply for jobs at their companies.

As I see it, the Brethren are calling for compassion where the church is able to provide compassion. Teaching, baptizing, and issuing a temple recommend to an illegal is not breaking any law.

4th: Those on the side of orthodoxy need to tread carefully here, lest they begin to appear as those in Catch 22 who demand a recitation of a loyalty oath before they pass the salt shaker. I’ve also felt the same frustration that you and Adam have had with some of the regulars in the nacle who either straddle the fence or come right out and say “aw shucks, you don’t have to believe that, I don’t.”

I _do_ believe there will be a sorting, a filtering, or a division within the church. Some members have already sorted themselves out of the church over Prop 8. But it’s not for the rank and file to point the finger and say “Je ‘ccuse!” But I do think it is probably appropriate to flat out ask people where they stand on the basic questions, as you have done.

DavidH,

John Dehlin wrote an an interesting article 9that I can’t now find) about how the temple recommend was (in his opinion) worded to allow for people to obtain a temple recommend even if they didn’t really believe in the LDS Church any more.

I basically agree with him on this. I personally *do not* believe that “belief in the unique truth claims of the LDS Church” should be a requirement for a temple recommend. (This belief on my part may separate me from other conservativeness Mormons, as I’ll explain below.)

(Note: Saying “believe in the unique truth claims of the LDS Church” is quite cumbersome. From this point forward, I’m going to just say “believe in the LDS Church” as a shorthand for it. Please don’t read any more into my wording than the need to be briefer.)

In other words, I *absolutely* believe someone like John should be allowed into the temple, but should never serve as a bishop. (Again, I think John would agree with me on this.)

That being said, I do note that the temple recommend questions includes “Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the *only* person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?”

This is a pretty strongly all inclusive question that would probably, by itself, rule out cultural Mormons from getting a temple recommend without either lying or really understanding the question vastly differently than it seems to be intended. But to me, that’s a matter of conscience and I have nothing to say about that subject.

All I’ll say is that I am not *personally* concerned that people get into the temple that no longer believe in the LDS Church so long as they are still living the standards and are willing to not sow seeds of doubt or try to convert others to their opinions in Church or through misrepresentation of their true beliefs.

So to answer your question, I guess I am strongly of the opinion that a temple recommend does *not* necessarily mean you are a Mormon that believes in the truth of the LDS Church. However, I do believe a Bishop (or other equivalent level leader) should *always* believe in the Church they are leading.

If I were in a ward or stake where John Dehlin was suddenly called as a Bishop, I’d absolutely feel that it was my duty to oppose them and to bring to the attention of the leaders what John’s beliefs actually are. (I’d be shocked if this happened because I believe John is a person of integrity so he’d tell them his real beliefs upfront and he’d never be called in the first place.)

If the leaders all the way up the chain still sustained John as Bishop after his real beliefs were known — and I believe they would not! — then I’d have no problem with it after that.

But that would also drastically change my understanding of what it means to “believe in the LDS Church” and I’d probably have to pass through a massive rethinking of everything about the LDS Church based on someone like John being intentionally put into a position of leadership like that even with his true beliefs known. I would consider the LDS Church to have changed into a new and completely different Church at that point.

Bookslinger,

Excellent pulling our thoughts together. You made so many good points my head is spinning still.

>>> “Oh, you don’t have to believe that to be a good member. I don’t believe it, and I’m a member. If that’s the danger that you’re decrying, then I’m totally with you.”

Yes. My concern is misrepresentation or dishonesty.

I’d have no issue with the same person saying upfront “I don’t believe in the LDS Church anymore, here is what I believe. I just get involved culturally because I like it. You can always do that if you want too.”

But claiming they are Believing Members as a setup for helping someone no longer believe is dishonest and I have serious issues with it. (I had this happen to me, btw. That’s why I find it so distasteful. This really does cause people unnecessary harm.)

>>> “Those on the side of orthodoxy need to tread carefully here, lest they begin to appear as those in Catch 22 who demand a recitation of a loyalty oath before they pass the salt shaker.”

I’ll do a post on this sometime. I am actually sympathetic to cultural Mormons that don’t want to tell their believing Mormon family or friends what they really are for fear of a bad reaction. And I don’t believe they have to/ need to.

But that issue — a valid one — is *not* the same as holding a dialog with someone on the Internet and intentionally either misrepresenting your beliefs or obfuscating them for the sake of avoiding actual dialog. This feels dishonest to me and it also shuts down any serious dialog because it allows the perpetrator to be critical but never be criticized.

I’m sure such an approach is great fun for those that do it, but it’s immoral and the leaders of the cultural Mormon community on the Internet should step up to the plate and decry such bad behavior. (I have had this happen to me on MM several times — one of the main reasons I left. It was very unpleasant and wouldn’t sit well with any honest person. If someone doesn’t believe me, I’ll collect the quotes of the incidents and publish them here as evidence.)

But both of those are small potatoes compared to doing something like accepting (or encouraging someone to accept) a Bishopric position when you/they don’t believe in the LDS Church. Now we’ve crossed the line from wanting to avoid persecution to unpleasant dishonesty to actual direct harm to the “church” (i.e. the body of believers.)

DavidH,

I thought of a simpler way to explain myself.

I see temple recommends as personal but sustainings to an office as public.

If I believed as John Dehlin does, I would personally be unable to receive a temple recommend because of the way I understand the temple recommend questions as (in my opinion) literal.

But how one chooses to understand the temple recommend questions is literally between him, the Lord, his personal conscience, and his Bishop — and probably in that order. So it’s none of my concern at all.

But if someone that didn’t believe in the LDS Church were to be sustained as a Bishop, that would be a different matter entirely. Now it’s a public matter and it affects everyone. I would have a moral duty to make sure people understand what that new Bishop believes or doesn’t believe as the case may be before he is called and sustained.

Bruce! I miss you, bro! Thanks for the kind words.

All I can say is…I’m honored to be mentioned in the same blog post with the likes of Kaimi and John Nilsson.

John Dehlin wrote an an interesting article 9that I can’t now find) about how the temple recommend was (in his opinion) worded to allow for people to obtain a temple recommend even if they didn’t really believe in the LDS Church any more.

I basically agree with him on this. I personally *do not* believe that “belief in the unique truth claims of the LDS Church” should be a requirement for a temple recommend.

The temple recommend questions ask whether the petitioner:

- believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

- has a testimony of the Atonement of Christ.

- has a testimony of the Restoration.

- sustains the President of the Church as THE Prophet, Seer and Revelator (holding and exercising all of the Priesthood keys), and the other Apostles as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

Now, I’ll admit that few specific doctrines are mentioned, and there’s a lot of Bill Clintonesque wiggle room if one wants to deconstruct each phrase (“I accept the Apostles as Prophets inasmuch as I define a Prophet as one who has the institutional position of an Apostle…”) but the on-the-face reading of those questions is one that, yes, DOES encompass belief in the broad scope of LDS teachings, and with the emphasis on the priesthood keys of the President, I would say that there is also much in there which emphasizes the “unique truth claims.”

Howdy John,

Good to talk to you again! Let’s do lunch. Seriously.

I could go on about how wonderful John Nilsson is too. I don’t know Kaimi, but if he’s like you and John then I guarentee I’d like him.

Very good points, Nathan.

Hey John Dehlin (if you see this),

I found the article you did about your personal beliefs that I mentioned.

I was looking for the article you wrote about how the temple recommend interview questions are somewhat “open to interpretation” and discuss different ways to understand them.

I really liked this article and personally had no issues with it. I was going to post a link here. Do you know which one I’m speaking of? I can’t find it.

Sorry Bruce, I thought that the email address I type into the comment form was visible to you as a contributor to this blog. jmaxwilson at sixteensmallstones dot org.

Here it is, Bruce. It’s been toned down a bit from its original version, but the main ideas are still there.

http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html#Temple_recommend

And yes…lunch soon! Come to Logan!!!

You know, John, it occurs to me (getting to see your article again) that I should probably have said “Menu Mormon” (or better alliteration than “Buffet Mormon”) or “Middle way Mormon” rather than “Cultural Mormon.”

That’s what I meant, though.

Live and learn.

John, I heard you were going back to school for a Psych degree. Actually, I probably am too — though research not clinical (perhaps organizational?)

I’d like to pick your brain on how you are going to accomplish it and still feed your family.

I sort of wanted to do physic (Vader, isn’t that you?) but I am afraid I’d practical have to start with an undergrad degree that way and fear having to go to school for a million years.

It might be helpful to actually engage the voluminous literature treating the contested definitions of “religion” instead of simply using a conveniently narrow definition to better exclude those with whom you disagree from being as orthodox as you view yourself.

I would assume you aren’t arguing that a person that believes in none of the unique truth claims of their church is the same as one that does. So, your point is unclear to me, Christopher. I certainly didn’t mean to offend you, but I’m looking back over what I wrote and I can’t see how I could have said it differently and still said what I meant.

I have no desire to, as you put it, “better exclude” anyone, unless we’re talking about being in positions of trust and leadership in an organization with a clearly defined belief system.

But how would addressing other possible understandings of the word ‘religion’ in any way affect the point I am making (whether you agree with it or not) other than to confuse it?

Yes, one could easily define ‘religion’ as ‘those that attend the same church no matter what they believe’ and it would be valid English. But now we’re referring to a different concept altogether, but using the same word for both.

And I don’t see how that easy admission – that the word “religion” has multiple possible meanings – changes the fact that there is also a valid way to define ‘religion’ as referring to a body of people that believe a certain way. Is this really a bad definition? I don’t think so.

You see, there are these (at least) two categories that we all admit exists. Note, for example, how John Dehlin’s link he sent me easily categorize the same to groups. And I could overwhelm with evidence that “Buffet Mormons” (to use John’s term in hopes of not offending further) utilize these two general categories regularly and without anyone getting offended over it (as happens in reverse.)

While I don’t want to offend, I have not successfully found a better way to discuss important concepts like this. Currently, it seems the only designation for those that believe in the tenets of Mormonism that Buffet Mormons will accept as valid is the derogatory “TBM” moniker. I will not accept that label any more, so I’m struggling to find a better one.

I’m sorry if this offends as I struggle to express myself in a field that (I fear) has intentionally been land mined.

I’d truly enjoy feedback from you on better ways to go about saying what I’m saying. But I would have an issue with someone telling me that I just shouldn’t be allowed to categorize (unfair, because everyone does it and often with gusto) or that I don’t have a right to express my honest (and widely held) opinion that leaders of religions should reflect the beliefs of their religion. (Not that you said either of these at this point.)

But this was my main point and neither opinion should be controversial for me to express. So I’d like to concentrate more on what names would be better to use to express the ideas I’m interested in. For example, maybe “Buffet Mormon” would have been better than “Cultural Mormon.”

I once, in good faith, made the mistake of saying “Unbelieving Mormon” to try to express a Mormon still actively involved culturally but no longer “believing” any of the tenets of the Church that make it unique and separate from other churches. But someone (rather rudely, no less) asked me to stop using that label because they found it offensive, thus my switch to “Cultural Mormon” as a sincere attempt to find a less offensive way to express my thoughts.

I have to admit, Christopher, I have concerns that maybe this has become a word game (I don’t mean you here, I’m just talking in general). Is it possible that so-called “Buffet Mormons” wish to be able to categorize others but use intimidation to keep from being categorized? I admit it sometimes feels that way to me and, if so, I’d find that to be a problem.

Anyhow, if I’m misunderstanding your concern, feel free to fill me in further. But if what you were really after was me admiting that there are other ways to define the word ‘religion’ I just did.

Christopher,

I guess one difference between what I am saying and you are saying that I just picked up on is that you used the phrase “contested definitions of ‘religion’”

I suppose I don’t see it as “contested” at all, but instead that (like all natural language words) the word is flexible and allows for multiple definitions depending on context. Since I made a point of defining my context and did it solely to express myself, I personally think I deserve a pass on this even if I didn’t say it quite as well as I could have.

It’s been clear since the time of Orwell that he who controls the language controls the discourse.

Redefine “religion” to mean nothing very concrete, and you make it impossible to talk meaningfully about religion. However, it affords the pleasure of being able to critique the narrowmindedness of those who try to restrict the word to something that is still meaningful.

I suspect the extensive literature on the meaning of religion comes out of academia and is directed at religion generally, to which academia (in my experience) is not particularly friendly to begin with. It is therefore not clear why the broad definitin of religion in general is correct to apply to Mormonism in particular. Yes, people can be very vague about their religious beliefs and still call themselves religious. I don’t contest that. What I, and Bruce evidently, contest, is whether people can be very vague about unique LDS truth claims and still call themselves Latter-day Saints.

I agree with everything Vader said except one thing, which I’ll clarify for myself.

I *do* call people that are actively involved with the LDS church, but don’t believe in it’s specific tenets “Latter day Saints” or “Mormons” still. That was exactly why I was trying to make up a split between “Believing Mormons” (or “Believeing Latter-day Saints”) and “Buffet Mormons” (or “Cultural Mormons.”)

In other words, I’m trying to recognize the concept without “excluding them” from the Church — at least at whatever level they wish to be involved at.

The *only* exception I see to this is in a pastoral role. I’m even okay with them serving (if called by their Bishop, of course) in other callings, etc.

The problem is that a pastoral role is specificly one built on trust and allowing someone that doesn’t believe in the tenets of a religion to be the faith leader is problematic at so many levels.

Agree with Bruce. The last thing I am interested in is finding reasons to drive people away from the Church. Struggling members should be made welcome, even to receiving appropriate callings.

It’s a very different matter, though, when we start to talk about leadership positions. If I learn my home teacher is struggling with whether the Book of Mormon is historic, I’m sympathetic. Where I to learn my bishop was struggling with whether the Book of Mormon is historic, I’d be deeply worried.

It’s interesting that I wrote this whole article and apparently the only point of interest is the off comment about Buffet Mormons shouldn’t be in pastoral roles for fear of undermining the faith.

In a lot of ways that worries me since, honestly, it should be a given.

One wonders if some regard this as a feature rather than a bug.

Guys, I think you’re straining at a gnat.

According to the criteria you have laid out in this post, B. H. Roberts was unfit to serve as a general authority because he had some serious doubts about the Book of Mormon. And yet none of us commenting here is a big enough man to pick up his jock strap, spiritually speaking.

B. H. Roberts was unfit to serve as a general authority because he had some serious doubts about the Book of Mormon.

This claim has been debunked.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/B.H._Roberts%27_testimony

Mark, see the “Doubt vs. Not Knowing” thread. We already covered this in great detail.

http://www.jrganymede.com/2009/11/17/doubt-vs-not-knowing/

Gentlemen, the point I am making is that his testimony of the Book of Mormon was at variance with church orthodoxy during his life. As the FAIR article demonstrates, he disbelieved that the BoM contained the record of the principal ancestors of the new world, something which was printed on the title page of the BoM up until a few years ago.

I don’t think that the model you have suggested to test people’s orthodoxy allows for somebody to publicly take a position at variance with the church or to play devil’s advocate, as the FAIR link clearly demonstrates Roberts did. But maybe I’m reading you incorrectly.

I think you are. Speaking for myself.

Mark,

I just don’t think this is that hard to understand. A person that disbelieves *all* the unique truth claims of the LDS Church just isn’t the right one to be a pastor in it. As far as I can tell, Mark, you aren’t arguing this with me, but instead making up a side argument that isn’t related to what I said, in my opinion.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that you are not suggesting that Robert’s disbelieved in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Instead, you are arguing that Roberts’ was at variance with “the Church” about their (at the time) wide geography model or ancestry model for the native Americans.

Thus, according to this argument (if I understand it), you are saying that Roberts, who did believe in the Book of Mormon still as per his own book ‘The Way, The Truth, and the Life’ states, should still be understood as being “at variance” with “the core doctrines” of “the Church” over the wide geography model / ancestry model that he held.

Do I understand your argument correctly?

If I do, then first, I must say I disagree with your assessment about both Roberts and the Church. I do not believe, even back then, a specific model of geography or ancestry fits the mold of being a “core doctrine” that, if you disagree with it, you constituted a different religious belief system. Compare this to actually believe the Book of Mormon is a fabrication of Joseph Smith. It just isn’t the same thing – not by a long shot.

Personally, I think the reason the early Church held such models back then was much simpler to explain – they simply hadn’t thought of any other models yet. But I do not believe this ever constituted some sort of “orthodoxy” as you seem to be suggesting.

However, what if I am wrong? What if the Church back then saw a specific geography or ancestor model as “revealed truth that can never be challenged?”

Now I don’t believe this one whit. But if it were the case, I think what I am saying still holds — Roberts would be unfit to be a pastor in such religion. How, exactly, would Roberts fulfill such a role while publicly denying what you are considering a “core truth claim” of the Church? I see no alternative but for Roberts’ to resign his role. Anything short of that would be intellectually dishonest.

(As an alternative, I suppose he could explain that he still believes in the Book of Mormon but no longer in the current geography model and see if the Church was still willing to have him in a pastoral role. But then we’re just denying our assumption that it was “revealed truth that can never be challenged”)

If, on the other hand, you are saying that you think Roberts had at some point decided he no longer believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon at all — he now believed Joseph Smith made it up — then I would think there would be a valid question as to whether or not it was appropriate for him to still hold a pastoral role in the Church. But you aren’t arguing this as far as I can tell.

Also, I ask for you to give me credit for already having addressed your objection in my post. See objection 4.

Since I clearly stated I was talking about people who believed in none of the unique truth claims of the LDS Church, I am not entirely sure why you are making this side argument. If you are right in it (and I believe you are not) then all you really did was uncover a “partial believer” just as I outlined in my object 4.

I’d be happy to consider that point of view further – that maybe there are more “partial believers” than I think there are. But honestly, I don’t see your Roberts example as being a counter example. I think he’s the perfect example of someone that believed *all* the unique truth claims of the LDS Church but was willing to come up with new ways of fitting them together. I think such a person is perfect for a pastoral role in the church, personally.

I note that objections to my post are always surrounding the specific questions I listed:

Do you believe the LDS Church has unique authority?
Do you believe salvation for the dead actually does something for the dead?
Do you believe the Book of Mormon is actually a record (of any sort) about real people that actually existed?
Do you believe Joseph Smith was visited by a The Father and the Son as actual personages in a grove of trees?
Do you believe the Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s?
Do you believe Joseph Smith was called as a Prophet to the whole world?

I just want to point out that I said the following about this list which has been ignored by my critics:

“I made the following list off the cuff as examples of what what I was asking him…. My point is that it just isn’t generally that hard to differentiate between someone culturally involved with a religion and someone that actually believes in it.”

My thesis is quite simple and not obscured at all. That it is generally quite easy to tell if someone actually believes in the religion they practice, or if they disbelieve it. There isn’t a wide middle ground that some seem to believe. BH Roberts disbelieving a certain geography model does not make him “a disbeliever” by any stretch of the imagination. In my opinion, Mark’s counter point proves my point. The middle ground is truly rare, if it exists at all. (I’m not saying it does or it doesn’t. I just don’t know.)

Mark, you said you believe with everything on my off the cuff list, right?

So you are saying that you believe the LDS Church does have unique authority for the whole world? That you do believe the Book of Mormon is a real record of actual people and not fiction? That you do believe Joseph Smith was visited by a The Father and the Son? That the Father does have a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s?

Are you saying you are okay with a Bishop that disbelieves any of these? Your okay with a Bishop that, for example, has personally decided the Book of Mormon is fiction? Or that believes the LDS Church is just another man-made Church that works for some but has no message from God to the world?