Chapel Mormons Vs. Internet Mormons

[Lamanite]

From a thread at MDB

DCP "I deny -- and find risible -- the notion that the FARMS Review has "attacked the benign and idealistic faith of Chapel Mormons." For one thing, I don't even recognize the existence of such a distinct class of Latter-day Saints; I've never bought into Shades's silly little false dichotomy."

I found this list from some nonsensical website that provides a difference between Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons:

# Chapel Mormons will typically try and bend the facts to fit the prophets, while Internet Mormons are far more comfortable bending the prophets to fit the facts.

# When the apologists contradict the prophets, Internet Mormons almost always go with the apologists, while Chapel Mormons almost always go with the prophets.

# Internet Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Chapel Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" are interchangeable.

# Internet Mormons believe that Noah's flood was a localized event, covering only a certain area. Chapel Mormons usually believe that Noah's flood was a global event, covering the entire world.

# Internet Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World filled with Asiatic inhabitants. Chapel Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World devoid of inhabitants save, perhaps, for at least one remaining Jaredite.

# When discussing prophetic utterances, Internet Mormons often say "it was only his opinion." Chapel Mormons almost never say "it was only his opinion," believing that a prophet's words and God's words are essentially one and the same.

# Internet Mormons believe that FARMS is correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located somewhere in Mesoamerica. Chapel Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located in Western New York and was the same hill from which he retrieved the Golden Plates.

# Internet Mormons believe that the only real and binding doctrine in Mormonism is that found between the covers of the four Standard Works--all else is mere conjecture. Chapel Mormons believe that real and binding doctrine is that which is accepted and believed by the majority of the Saints (in practice, this means that they accept the overwhelming majority of what they learn in church and in the church's official publications in addition to the four Standard Works).

# Internet Mormons tend to want to "filter" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge. Chapel Mormons tend to take a prophet's words at face value.

# Internet Mormons believe that the scriptures supersede the living prophets. Chapel Mormons believe that the living prophets supersede the scriptures.

# Internet Mormons believe that a prophet's words may not apply to at least some of the people he's addressing. Chapel Mormons tend to believe that a prophet's words apply to everyone he's addressing.

# Chapel Mormons believe that a prophet is a foreordained man of the highest moral caliber. Internet Mormons believe that a prophet is not necessarily any better than his societal average.

The list just provides a jumping off point, and is not necessarily meant to be the topic of discussion.

My point is that I don't have a problem with a very blurry line of distinction. The days of orthodox literalism is shifting, IMO. I absolutely think that as scientific or historical information becomes available that may challenge our current theological paradigms, Internet Mormons are more likely to entertain the implications; whereas the run of the mill Chapel Mormon may bristle to know the Earths age is approx 4.5 billion years old and is not pieces of other old Earths put together.

One does not need to be one or the other. But I don't have a problem with a loose distinction for conversations sake.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

The nonsensical website sure got a lot of things wrong. I would probably be called an Internet Mormon but I have many characteristics of the so-called chapel Mormon according to this list. One really cannot make a black and white distinction among LDS and I wonder at the motivation of making such a distinction; is it to divide and conquer? One size does not fit all contrary to what the enemies of the church would like to think.

[Lamanite]

The nonsensical website sure got a lot of things wrong. I would probably be called an Internet Mormon but I have many characteristics of the so-called chapel Mormon according to this list. One really cannot make a black and white distinction among LDS and I wonder at the motivation of making such a distinction; is it to divide and conquer? One size does not fit all contrary to what the enemies of the church would like to think.

I think you're right Deborah. Very few things in my life are black and white. But these types of classifications are generally rooted in some truth. I think my example of the age of the Earth is a prime example of the shift that is beginning to take place. We could talk about MMM. We saw the reception Sister Brooks got by trying unfold the truth. And now look at Brother Jensen and Turley, and what they have accomplished. Why the change? I think the Internet does have it's role in the availability of information; and because so much more scientific and historical info is available to us as Mormons, some of us are starting to view this just a tiny bit different, and some of us are not; and that creates a slight distinction.

But we are all Saints, and we are all God's covenant people no matter how old the Earth is!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

I think the Internet does have it's role in the availability of information; and because so much more scientific and historical info is available to us as Mormons, some of us are starting to view this just a tiny bit different, and some of us are not; and that creates a slight distinction.

But even the information available affects people in different areas; some could care less about the age of the earth and some don't care at all about how many wives Joseph had so if they appear oblivious to the information it may be more because they aren't interested than the fact they try to mold the facts to fit the situation. I know many people who are so founded spiritually that it doesn't matter what information is thrown at them. I've pretty much reached that point. I've had too many years experience with this to really believe it matters so we can hear all the "evidence" people want to throw at us but quite frankly the truth is probably somewhere between what is known and what is believed and we will never know the whole truth in this life.

Therefore we have to chose which has more weight for us: our faith and all the experiences that got us there, or the "uncovered" details that may change the traditional view of things. I go with the former because I've simply seen the evidence change too much and I know from experience that even "facts" have a basis in bias, interpretation and unknown additional factors.

[Avatar4321]

I remember when Shades came up with the dicotemy. It was stupid then. It's stupid now.

[Lamanite]

some of us are starting to view this just a tiny bit different, and some of us are not; and that creates a slight distinction.

I made the remark above. I used the words, "some", "tiny bit", and "slight". I made no sweeping assertions of intellectual or class distinctions.

To understand you right Deborah and Avatar, there is no dicotemy [sic] that exists?

And Deborah I placed no salvational value on the truths gleaned from the scientific or historical data, however I don't dismiss it with such ease. Elder Widsote, Elder B.H. Roberts, Elder Talmage, Brother Eyring et al, did not think these mere fleeting factoids were of no value to our spiritual welfare.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

Elder Widsote, Elder B.H. Roberts, Elder Talmage, Brother Eyring et al, did not think these mere fleeting factoids were of no value to our spiritual welfare.

I didn't say they were of no value; I welcome whatever knowledge we can glean and in fact it is the ever increasing knowledge we have from the Joseph Smith papers that adds power to my faith. I do understand though that when there is a dichotomy between faith and some so-called fact, I'll go with faith. I've found my faith has eventually been answered factually, though sometimes not for many years.

[Wiki Wonka]

We have a FAIR Wiki article on it here: Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons

[Lamanite]

I didn't say they were of no value; I welcome whatever knowledge we can glean and in fact it is the ever increasing knowledge we have from the Joseph Smith papers that adds power to my faith. I do understand though that when there is a dichotomy between faith and some so-called fact, I'll go with faith. I've found my faith has eventually been answered factually, though sometimes not for many years.

I think we might be on the same page then. I know in my life when there seems to be a question regarding something that has previously been confirmed by the Holy Spirit, then there is no question whatever about it. However, if I'm seeking truth that has not been confirmed or revealed by God, then it will come by study and by faith. And I will stay that course until the Spirit bestows further light and knowledge, and my testimony is increased.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Anijen]

It least you know by way of personal knowledge the chapel Mormon. Anyone can be an Internet ______(insert your religion here). And have you ever noticed the amazing amount of anonymous "experts" on the Internet?

[Lamanite]

Thanks Mr. Wonka.

I think the most important part of that article is that LDS beliefs are broad in spectrum. This is why I used such minimalistic language when describing any differences. But even if the evil Dr. Shades coined the term, I'll take it and use it simply for convenience sake.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[tithulta]

I would say that, in my experience, LDS run the gambit as far as the literal interpretation of the bible. Some think that dinosaurs are a trick of the devil, some believe the earth is, indeed, billions of years old.

The biggest difference I have seen from chapel mormons and internet mormons are the detail in which they use to defend their point of view. Most chapel mormons "bury their head in the sand" or "sweep it under the rug." Internet mormons actually confront these issues with more zeal and determination than chapel mormons, and this is where, I believe, their greatest failure comes from.

By hyperfocusing on each issue, internet mormons get wrapped up in the details and the improbable (but seemingly plausible) deniability of each issue. The crux usually comes down to "there is not enough evidence to PROVE me wrong," combined with a bunch of circumstantial evidence that would never be good enough if the tables were turned. Fair enough, sometimes. But the big picture is lost. A lack of horses aren't going to make or brake anyone's case. A lack of horses, elephants, hebrew, egyptian, steel, etc begins to get tougher and tougher to explain. A lack of linguistic evidence combined with all of this gets even more difficult to wish away. Then you get into Joseph Smith pronouncing himself "King of the Kingdom of God," marrying 48 women, running for US president, starting the United Order of Enoch and printing and spending worthless money, it really starts looking grim. That is just the beginning, mind you.

This is why chapel mormons have it easier. They can be dimly aware of the issues but still avoid them, and never get bogged down in the details. It is easier for them to avoid the information that demonstrates how wrong the church has been. Obviously, there is a spectrum. My seminary teacher seemed to be aware of the papyri, the 48 wives, Danites, and told me with a straight face that the horses all died off. I even knew a TBM or two who had read "No Man Knows my History" or "Nightfall at Nauvoo." However, my other teachers seemed mostly oblivious to the more troublesome issues.

So yeah, there is a spectrum, and it is tough to classify people in any sort of instance, but I think a great deal of the TBMs here are firmly at the "internet mormon" end of the spectrum.

[Avatar4321]

There is no spectrum. The assertion was ludicrous to begin with.

[Lamanite]

There is no spectrum. The assertion was ludicrous to begin with.

You and I represent a spectrum within Mormonism. I'm sure on every Salvational truth of the Gospel we agree; Joseph is a Prophet, President Monson and the Twelve are Prophets seers and revelators, and special witnesses of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ Atoned for the sins of mankind and was Resurrected on the third day that we might also live again, Baptism by immersion and the Gift of the Holy Ghost are essential to our exaltation, as well as all the other ordinances of the Gospel....I could go on. But I'm sure there is a divergence in some facet of the Church between the two of us and that creates a spectrum with infinite shades from black to white.

Big UP!

Lamanite

And I'm begging you not to say anything regarding my loyalty or dedication to the Kingdom, or my family.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't have a problem with "very blurry" distinctions, either.

But the originator of the Chapel/Internet Mormon distinction goes for the black-and-white, not the blurry. He has long maintained that he's discovered the existence of two quite distinct religions, two separate churches, within the LDS Church.

I'm told that his simplistic and tendentious notion didn't get a very good reception even from the crowd at Sunstone when he presented it a few years ago. If that's true, I'm not surprised.

That Mormon attitudes and ideas form a spectrum -- or, more precisely, multiple spectra -- is so obvious as to be a banality. (Latter-day Saints are human, and they represent a wide range of educational, social, economic, political, professional, and other backgrounds, as well as a very large variety of regions, personality types, commitment levels, degrees of intellectual sophistication, depths of scriptural and historical knowledge, and psychological histories.) That committed Latter-day Saints can be neatly compartmentalized into two utterly distinct (and, by some especially silly accounts, warring) religious faiths is merely ludicrous.

But that, in fact, is precisely the question at issue.

I myself must, surely, be the absolute archetype of the "Internet Mormon," if that fantastical creature actually exists. Yet I've taken the purported diagnostic test developed to identify Internet Mormons several times, and I always come out, quite unambiguously, a "Chapel Mormon."

There is little if any merit in this half-baked notion. If anybody really feels the need to draw distinctions, though, I suggest Richard Poll's older and much better thought-out contrast between "Iron Rod" and "Liahona" Mormons as the more fruitful way to go.

[Zakuska]

Dr. P... de-nile is a river in egypt.

[Lamanite]

I don't have a problem with "very blurry" distinctions, either....

I'm glad you posted here.

I have the advantage/disadvantage of not knowing anything about Mr. Shades. We can coin new phrases today if we like. I propose that some Mormons are:

1. A little bit country, or

2. A little bit Rock and Roll, or

3. Bob Marley fans.

I think it's healthy to have both Sterling McMurrin (some won't like that choice, but I love Sterling) and Hugh Nibley in the Church. I like that Joseph Fielding Smith sat down with Henry Eyring and talked about the vast expanse that existed between the two extremes of their spectrums. I like that David O. McKay seemed to take issue with a few of Elder McConkie's idea's about Mormon doctrine. There are lots of these examples between the Brethren and within the General membership.

But what Dr. or Mr. (I can never remember) Shades doesn't really understand is that we are united in a covenant relationship with each other and with God. Truly we have taken Christ's name upon ourselves and (most of the time) have no more desire to do evil but to do good continually. We are all Mormon! And a little distinction here and there is honest and healthy.

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS That thread at MDB was a joke. Personally, I would be telling myself "I will not reply to this nonsense", as I was typing my response. I'm not sure if you ever go through that? Anyway, Shabbat Shalom...

[BCSpace]

There is no such distinction between "chapel" and "internet" Mormons.

However, I do sense a distinction between older and newer generations of LDS with regards to how they process gaps in doctrine. Evolution vs. creationism for example. The older generation is also more likely to not be aware of what is and is not doctrine, believing, for example, that BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" and the JoD are doctrinal works. This could have been said 30 -40 years ago so those in this distinctive older generation are disappearing rapidly.

[Lamanite]

There is no such distinction between "chapel" and "internet" Mormons.

However, I do sense a distinction between older and newer generations of LDS with regards to how they process gaps in doctrine. Evolution vs. creationism for example. The older generation is also more likely to not be aware of what is and is not doctrine, believing, for example, that BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" and the JoD are doctrinal works. This could have been said 30 -40 years ago so those in this distinctive older generation are disappearing rapidly.

The fact that you take issue with the labels "chapel" and "internet" is fine. But you admit, and I admit, and Deborah admits, and Brother Peterson admits that there are distinctions. A "multiple spectra" as DCP described it. Whatever the labels it...the spectra of beliefs exist.

I think the labels of chapel and Internet Mormons convey a very general and useful idea for distinctions. But maybe you have a better idea like old Mormons and young Mormons. I'm kidding of course. Perhaps there doesn't need to be labels and we just take it one case at a time.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

While there is variation among members in my experience the Internet vs. Chapel dichotomy exists so strawman arguments can be built more easily. It's easy to pick what you say the 'Chapel' Mormons believe and fill it with whatever you want. When actual LDS show up to dispute your assertion usually on the Internet (note the clever name) then they are almost certainly 'Internet' Mormons and their thoughts are different from the people currently being attacked.

P.S. I'm working on my Intelligent Critics vs. Noisy Git Critics dichotomy. Coming to a board near you in 2009.

[BCSpace]

I'm kidding of course. Perhaps there doesn't need to be labels and we just take it one case at a time.

Of course. For example, my mom and dad are from the same "older" generation. But my dad is more in line with the younger generation distinction I made and my mom is with the older.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm a front row of the Chapel Internet Mormon.

[Scottie]

Well, for my measly 2 cents worth here, I see a HUGE gap between the internet Mormons and the chapel Mormons.

I live in Ut County, with the highest concentration of Mormons in the world. I can tell you right now that VERY few of them know, or even want to know, the gritty warts of the church.

I would wager that the Internet/Chapel Mormon phenomenon is a largly Utah County thing. I think most members outside of Utah are more aware of the warts. We are in a fairly protective bubble here when nearly everyone is a member, and they all reenforce each others beliefs. There really isn't a lot of opposition or opportunity for them to learn the warts unless they do it on their own.

[annewandering]

I'm a front row of the Chapel Internet Mormon.

Cheers!! my town is heartland LDS. small. famous lds people came from here. my ward is filled with a huge variety. even in one family. some love the internet and like to come on to see whats going on. others think its tool of the devil. (some of the brightest people ever live here. some of the dumbest too) of the bright ones, i can assure you that some of them can turn any of you upside down and inside out with their knowledge and understanding. including you d. peterson. or give you a good run for it for sure! i am not sure any of those go on the internet for this stuff but i could be surprised.

basically we are all sorts and kinds on and off the internet. its insulting to even think otherwise.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, for my measly 2 cents worth here, I see a HUGE gap between the internet Mormons and the chapel Mormons.

If you're right, I hereby step forward, as a three-time Shades-certified Chapel Mormon, to declare my strong opposition to Internet Mormonism.

Should I ever encounter it, I will denounce it immediately.