You commented while I was writing my last. Your analysis, as always, is superb.

I did want to add one thing. Eugene England is a great example of what I think of as a “heretrdox believer.” He basically believed everything and all of it, he just fit it together differently than in traditional ways. I think a key point with England (at least back when he wrote his article on polygamy) was that he affirms it came from God. But heterodoxical beliefs aside (ones I don’t necessarily disagree with) I don’t think there is any doubt that England had the right to hold himself up as a believer without in any way throwing people off.

Todd, you just almost completely disarmed me. I would love to hear your three hour explanation too. I’m going to contact you within the next couple of weeks.

Kaimi, I know people (and you probably in particular) are going to think I’m crazy, but I think this was an incredibly worthwhile and fruitful discussion far more so than just about any I had ever been in elsewhere on the “bloggernacle.” It has helped me a lot and both intensified (in some ways) as well as modified (in other ways) my point of view, which is the nature of a fruitful discussion.

For what it is worth, Todd’s answer was straight up enough that I now basically believe him that the quote about him that I was complaining about lacked context. This, I suppose, does not fully address all my concerns, particularly the claim of ‘believing’ in the book that also lacked enough context for a young believer to understand properly. (This is a two way street, you have to give context in both circumstances, not one.)

But when you address 80+% of my concerns like this in such a straightforward manner, you deserve full benefit in my opinion (especially since you are offering me a full explanation offline).

I do disagree with Todd that I was “ad hominem” attacking but I think Adam successfully explained that point so I won’t belabor it. I am going to do a future post (not about ISL or Todd) where I’m going to discuss my separate concerns with characterizing people’s legitimate concerns as ad hominem attacks.

I’m going to close the comments now that I feel this thread really has played itself out fully in miraculously productive ways.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is an actual record, however imperfectly written, transmitted and understood, of an actual historical people? Do you believe that the First Vision was a conversation with beings existing outside of Joseph Smith’s mind?

Since there seems to be some semantic difficulty here, let me explain that by “believe” I mean that you are sufficiently convinced of it that you are willing to act on that belief in ways that you would not if you did not believe it. That is what I mean when I say I believe it.

And “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer as long as it’s honest.

On the original question (as I understand it): When an author on a controversial Mormon topic makes the claim in his writings, however briefly, that he is a Mormon, he is making an appeal to authority. He is, at a minimum, strongly suggesting to Mormon and non-Mormon readers alike that what he writes is reflective of the Mormon community, of which I am a member. That means I have some skin in it.

There are ways to qualify the statement of affiliation that remove the appeal to authority, of course. One can state “… but I’m not presently active” or “… but my views here should not be taken as representative of mainstream Mormon beliefs.” I’ve used the latter phrase myself when something I’ve written was speculative.

Not that I write much heavy stuff. I did write a fairly heavy bit on “The Diversity of Perfections” some months back that a couple of the regulars here made happy noises about, but which otherwise attracted no attention except from someone who called me a crazy Mormon crackpot. I did not consider that a particularly fruitful discussion, and I’ve stuck to the role of “court jester’ since. Which is not to say that my occasional statements of faith are not completely serious.

My temperament is such that I prefer to live and let live. Don’t think the First Vision was anything but a metaphor or the Book of Mormon anything but inspired fiction? Fine. You go off and believe that, and let me believe in them in a rather more orthodox fashion, and I hope I never have the burden of conducting a worthiness interview with you. But don’t attach the fine words “liberal” and “conservative” to our respective beliefs, because that’s not accurate. “Orthodox” and “heterodox” are the accurate labels.

I am not terribly acquainted with the “Mormon liberals” one of you listed. I have heard Eugene England state that he does not believe there will be polygamy in the world to come, but that was many years ago, he didn’t make any particular statement on whether he thought in this life polygamy was commanded of God to Joseph Smith, and I have no idea what he believes now. I have also read him speculate that the Atonement was a metaphor staged for our benefit, to impress us with God’s love, rather than any actual settling of accounts. I have not read him write that faith in Jesus Christ is not essential and I don’t know what his present views are. I am actually kind of inclined to agree with him on polygamy in the world to come; at least, I’m willing to consider it a realistic possibility; but I’m not willing to believe the practice was not God’s will and I disagree with England’s essay on the basic nature of the Atonement. However, I have never heard or read anything by England that suggests he is “liberal” as you just defined it. My point in all this is that I would be careful about claiming too much affinity with England or the other “liberals” you named if I were any of you.

I don’t want to psychoanalyze Bruce at a distance, but I think I understand which of his nerves is being hit here. An awful lot of faith-destroying rumors are published by folks who declare their lifelong Mormonism as a credential. Palmer and his DNA criticisms of the historicity of the Book of Mormon come to mind as a recent example. Bruce (and I) would like to strip them of that credential. Bruce has gone a step further here, in suggesting that some literature by folks who insist that they are still faithful Mormons is also faith-destroying, and they should be called out for their heterodoxy. Whether that’s right or fair is of course the question before the forum. I think Christ’s warning about sheep in wolve’s clothing makes it clear that it can be right and fair, but just where the line is drawn is of some interest, enough to keep me from keeping this whole discussion at arm’s length. (Otherwise I would be inclined to not touch it with a ten-foot pole.) I do not care particularly which side of the line Todd Compton is on; he is not in my ward, I am not his spiritual leader. I have not read his book and do not plan to; if I ever find time to read a polygamy book, which is doubtful, I will probably go with More Wives than One, which I am told by friends I trust, who are more Gospel-scholarly than I, is the better book. I might have preferred that the discussion of where the aforementioned line is drawn be based on hypotheticals rather than concrete examples, but then the discussion might never have gotten off the ground.

Would I be comfortable with a Bishopric member who believed the Book of Mormon was inspired fiction, or that the First Vision was a devout hallucination, or that the Priesthood is a metaphor and there isn’t really a Book of Life in Heaven that records our saving ordinances? Frankly, no. I don’t know if any of you have these beliefs, and I would in any case be delighted to be relieved of any such concerns; but when Bruce reports that Kaimi encouraged a man who allegedly has such beliefs to accept a Bishopric call, and Todd Compton responds to questions about his beliefs with talk about how “complex” his faith is and how he’s thinking of writing a book on how we approach faith, I have concerns. I believe those concerns are legitimate.

Adam, Bruce, gst, Vader — all presumably non-pack.
TotalNathan – semi-regular JRG commenter, and on Bruce’s side anyway.
Tom Haws – not a regular JRG reader, and against Bruce. Hey, there’s your first pack member!
Johnna – JRG reader (and commenter! see, e.g., http://www.jrganymede.com/2010/02/12/ye-cannot-behold-with-your-natural-eyes/ )
Seth and BHodges – both nacle regulars and frequent participants in FAIR discussions. Neither of them is “getting indignant in the comments,” except perhaps at me. They’re both here solely for the threadjack of clarifying what I meant about FAIR.
J Max – presumably not a pack member
John Dehlin, Laura Compton, Todd Compton – all mentioned by name by Bruce, all replying to his assertions made about their beliefs
DMI Dave – I don’t know if he reads JRG regularly (I think he may read it semi-regularly). But possibly your second pack member.

That’s it. All 81 comments come from that list.

Yep, watch out for those NOM types, quite the pack they are.

Todd and Laura Compton are not regular JRG readers, that’s true. But Adam, the OP names them both by name and makes statements about what they personally believe. I’d think that they would be permitted to enter the conversation without accusations of pack mentality. Do you really disagree with that idea?

(And the same for John Dehlin, who is also commenting in direct response to Bruce’s repeated statements about John’s personal belief).

Where exactly is this pack?

thanks for being somewhat honest about your “liberal faith” and inactivity.

Your are being somewhat less honest, unfortunately, about the whole cry of “Ad hominem.” That’s blatantly false. Bruce Neilson isn’t saying that the facts in your book are somehow untrue because you are a bad guy. He’s saying that its wrong for you to position yourself as a believing Mormon to people who you very well know think that your definition of “believing” is full of crap. Full stop. Whether you have done this or not, I do not know, but that’s what the argument is.

And also I do not appreciate this New Order Mormon pack mentality, where if someone questions a “Mormonism” that doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, etc., as more than metaphors, all of sudden people who never read the blog are getting indignant in the comments.