Chapel Mormons Vs. Internet Mormons

[ttribe]

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.

How can you reach this conclusion? Have you performed a scientifically valid survey of the LDS residents of UT County?

[annewandering]

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.

i have a strong opposition to being classified on my religion by whether or not i use the internet to discuss religion. arg!!! but given the choice i go to chapel. chapels are very nice places to be associated with.

[wenglund]

Hey Lamanite,

Even were we to be forgiving of the layers of contra-science permiating Shade's false dichotomy, and take it all in a more relaxed and flexible stride (as you suggest), I don't see much value being derived therefrom--certainly not enough to offset the huge vulnerability to misuse/stereotyping.

It was a categorization scheme that was in no demonstrable way designed to improve the quality of people's lives or assist them in becoming better people in joy and love. And, from what I have observed of its usage, it has been wielded in such a way as to affect the opposite.

For what it is worth...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scottie]

How can you reach this conclusion? Have you performed a scientifically valid survey of the LDS residents of UT County?

No, I haven't. This is simply my experience, which is in no way conclusive. I may be 100% wrong.

You see, I WAS a chapel Mormon until I turned into an Internet Mormon... after which I turned into an apostate Mormon. Nearly everything on Shades list described me to a T when I was a chapel Mormon. I never knew JS had multiple wives, I thought polygamy was only because so many men had died crossing the plains, I believed there were extensive South American artifacts that PROVED the BoM true, I never EVER questioned the words of the prophets, I thought the Earth was 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were here because God made this world out of many older worlds, etc.

Most of my friends were exactly like me. Most of the members I talk to now have very little knowledge of these things, and quite frankly, they don't want to hear them. I went on a date not too long ago where the girl absolutely REFUSED to believe that a prophet could say anything at GC that wasn't directly from God. In my experience, she is the norm here, not the exception.

However, this being said, I would have to believe that Dr Peterson as a Bishop as well as other Bishops who live in this area would have a better handle on what members know and what they don't. They interview the members quite regularly. As I said, my small sample is hardly conclusive.

[Lamanite]

Hey Lamanite,

Even were we to be forgiving of the layers of contra-science permiating Shade's false dichotomy, and take it all in a more relaxed and flexible stride (as you suggest), I don't see much value being derived therefrom--certainly not enough to offset the huge vulnerability to misuse/stereotyping.

It was a categorization scheme that was in no demonstrable way designed to improve the quality of people's lives or assist them in becoming better people in joy and love. And, from what I have observed of its usage, it has been wielded in such a way as to affect the opposite.

For what it is worth...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What up CUZ!

Long time no talk. I see you doin your thang over at the MDB, so I aint mad atcha!

Sorry about that, I just watched Snoop Doggs Fatherhood on E!

Anyway, I feel where you're coming from. Shade's motives were less than altruistic. But it provides an opportunity for introspection. I kind of continued this internal dialogue over at my blog. If your interested. Link is in my sig.

Big UP my friend!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

No, I haven't. This is simply my experience, which is in no way conclusive. I may be 100% wrong.

I never knew JS had multiple wives, I thought polygamy was only because so many men had died crossing the plains, I believed there were extensive South American artifacts that PROVED the BoM true, I never EVER questioned the words of the prophets, I thought the Earth was 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were here because God made this world out of many older worlds, etc.

I was converted while living in West Jordan. Scottie's experience matches my observations pretty well. I wonder why we resist this so much? The list above describes fairly accurately the average Mormon's belief in 1997-Present with little change. Are/Were there exceptions? Absolutely.

Just today I sat in Sunday School today and the teacher asserted the Hemispheric model as FACT. I stayed quiet. Then he quoted 5 paragraphs from Little Known Evidences of the Book of MormonBrenton G. Yorgason. 5 full paragraphs of outdated nonsense. I stayed quiet. Then he said that the wine discussed in Moroni's text of the Sacrament Prayer was not fermented. He said that the wine Jesus used was not fermented but "the pure juice of the vine" and not fermented. Then he said Joseph Smith never once drank alcohol in his life and that they only used wine that was "not fermented". Finally some Young Father asked him how he knew all this...the answer......The Brethren said it. The Young Father asked him which one.....the reply....I don't know but it's something the Brethren teach. Moreover, he didn't even have Scriptures. He was reading directly from Millet, McConkie, Top BoM commentary.

Was this isolated? No. Last week a lady asserted that one of the calamities discussed by Mormon was in fact the tectonic plates regrouping so that the Earth could receive its Paradisaical glory. I'm serious.

Today I got to hear the " Moon red as blood" argument in Priesthood. They couldn't decide if it was nuclear holocaust or massive fires from Heaven.

And I loved every minute of it! The good brother above, gave the most wonderful testimony of the Sacrament. The lady who talked about the tectonic plates shared a powerful witness of the Book of Mormon. The guys in Priesthood are all idiots, including me, and it's wonderful to just sit and talk about stuff, and hopefully witness a little bit to each other.

We are varied and flawed in many ways, and I'm glad, or I would really feel out of place.

Big UP you absolutely weird and wonderful Mormons!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I was converted while living in West Jordan. Scottie's experience matches my observations pretty well. I wonder why we resist this so much? The list above describes fairly accurately the average Mormon's belief in 1997-Present with little change. Are/Were there exceptions? Absolutely.

Just today I sat in Sunday School today and the teacher asserted the Hemispheric model as FACT. I stayed quiet. Then he quoted 5 paragraphs from Little Known Evidences of the Book of MormonBrenton G. Yorgason. 5 full paragraphs of outdated nonsense. I stayed quiet. Then he said that the wine discussed in Moroni's text of the Sacrament Prayer was not fermented. He said that the wine Jesus used was not fermented but "the pure juice of the vine" and not fermented. Then he said Joseph Smith never once drank alcohol in his life and that they only used wine that was "not fermented". Finally some Young Father asked him how he knew all this...the answer......The Brethren said it. The Young Father asked him which one.....the reply....I don't know but it's something the Brethren teach. Moreover, he didn't even have Scriptures. He was reading directly from Millet, McConkie, Top BoM commentary.

Was this isolated? No. Last week a lady asserted that one of the calamities discussed by Mormon was in fact the tectonic plates regrouping so that the Earth could receive its Paradisaical glory. I'm serious.

Today I got to hear the " Moon red as blood" argument in Priesthood. They couldn't decide if it was nuclear holocaust or massive fires from Heaven.

And I loved every minute of it! The good brother above, gave the most wonderful testimony of the Sacrament. The lady who talked about the tectonic plates shared a powerful witness of the Book of Mormon. The guys in Priesthood are all idiots, including me, and it's wonderful to just sit and talk about stuff, and hopefully witness a little bit to each other.

We are varied and flawed in many ways, and I'm glad, or I would really feel out of place.

Big UP you absolutely weird and wonderful Mormons!

Lamanite

I forgot to add that a member of the Bishopric read the bona fide Boyd K. Packer quote about GBH and the hush falling over he crowd blah blah bla, to the primary. I would say he is not an Internet Mormon. Even though he probably got it in his e-mail. lol

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Daniel Peterson]

I wonder why we resist this so much?

I don't resist the notion that there exists a range of knowledge, sophistication, commitment, reflection, etc., among believing members of the Church, that some are less prone to scriptural literalism in certain cases than others, and the like. Not even slightly.

This is perfectly obvious to any even slightly perceptive observer, and scarcely constitutes a Big Discovery.

But, evidently much like that audience at the Sunstone symposium a few years back, I reject the silly, tendentious, and misleading attempt to persuade people that two rigidly distinct groups -- Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons, "entirely different religions" -- co-exist within the Church.

Again, I point out that I've taken Mr. Shades's diagnostic test three times, and that, each time, I, who would surely be the very model of an "Internet Mormon" if that unicorn-like breed actually existed, have come out a clear "Chapel Mormon."

It's entirely possible that Shades still goes out on regular snipe hunts, and that he even believes that he's caught glimpses of snipes in the wild. (They resemble weasels, I'm told, but are just slighly larger.) Rumor has it that he's the largest landowner in bayou country.

[Lamanite]

I don't resist the notion that there exists a range of knowledge, sophistication, commitment, reflection, etc., among believing members of the Church, that some are less prone to scriptural literalism in certain cases than others, and the like. Not even slightly.

This is perfectly obvious to any even slightly perceptive observer, and scarcely constitutes a Big Discovery.

But, evidently much like that audience at the Sunstone symposium a few years back, I reject the silly, tendentious, and misleading attempt to persuade people that two rigidly distinct groups -- Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons, "entirely different religions" -- co-exist within the Church.

Again, I point out that I've taken Mr. Shades's diagnostic test three times, and that, each time, I, who would surely be the very model of an "Internet Mormon" if that unicorn-like breed actually existed, have come out a clear "Chapel Mormon."

It's entirely possible that Shades still goes out on regular snipe hunts, and that he even believes that he's caught glimpses of snipes in the wild. (They resemble weasels, I'm told, but are just slighly larger.) Rumor has it that he's the largest landowner in bayou country.

I think we've both made it perfectly clear that the "two dgidly distinct groups" is ludicrous. Is Shades entire presentation available anywhere?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Scottie]

I think we've both made it perfectly clear that the "two dgidly distinct groups" is ludicrous. Is Shades entire presentation available anywhere?

Big UP!

Lamanite

And yet your previous post so perfectly illustrated the disconnect. How man distinct un-truths did your Sunday School teacher tried to pass off as fact?

On the rare occasions that I attend church, I see this often. Mis-informations taught one after the other. And, just to be clear, I don't sense that this is done on purpose in any way. The teachers honestly believe what they are teaching is fact.

I'm fairly certain that I will now be bombarded with overly-defensive members claiming they NEVER see this. Fire away.

[The Nehor]

I think we've both made it perfectly clear that the "two dgidly distinct groups" is ludicrous. Is Shades entire presentation available anywhere?

Big UP!

Lamanite

The beauty of it is people on the 'board that must not be named' has lately had posters declaring that these two groups are about to come to blows. This fuzzy distinction is now being used by some critics to support their deluded fantasy that the Church is about to rip in half over Book of Mormon geography.

[Scottie]

The beauty of it is people on the 'board that must not be named' has lately had posters declaring that these two groups are about to come to blows. This fuzzy distinction is now being used by some critics to support their deluded fantasy that the Church is about to rip in half over Book of Mormon geography.

Yeah, this was a rather ridiculous thread over there.

Crud, there are internet Mormons who strongly disagree between LGT and HGT.

[Daniel Peterson]

Several there appear to live in some kind of fantasy land, but they've formed themselves into a sort of association for mutual support in their imaginary world.

If, that is, the relevant posters are all genuinely distinct. There are times when I suspect that some of the mutual backslapping and endorsing is being done by 2-3 sock puppets.

[ttribe]

Yeah, this was a rather ridiculous thread over there.

Crud, there are internet Mormons who strongly disagree between LGT and HGT.

Let's keep it simple - I have yet to see a rift develop between disparate groups in the Church over the Articles of Faith (a decent proxy for a "list" of Mormon Doctrine); have you?

[Lamanite]

And yet your previous post so perfectly illustrated the disconnect. How man distinct un-truths did your Sunday School teacher tried to pass off as fact?

On the rare occasions that I attend church, I see this often. Mis-informations taught one after the other. And, just to be clear, I don't sense that this is done on purpose in any way. The teachers honestly believe what they are teaching is fact.

I'm fairly certain that I will now be bombarded with overly-defensive members claiming they NEVER see this. Fire away.

There was mis-information passed off as truth. I am fairly certain he had no idea the book was crap and that John Tvedtness took the author and the book to task. I think he honestly believed what he was teaching was accurate.

But the mistakes and misinformation all had to do with non-salvational truths. So it was no big deal. I'm pretty sure me and maybe 1 or 2 other people knew that the hemispheric model is all but dead. But who cares. Should I get a medal because I read some article off the Maxwell Institute site? NO. And should he and I be grouped into separate camps within the Church? No. He and I are Mormons. Do we share 100% of the same ideas? No. I'm fairly certain I know more about current Book of Mormon linguistics; but I'm also certain this good Farmer/Father/Husband/Grandfather etc. possesses twice the integrity and moral fortitude than I have. So which one is the winner?

He was a good guy. He meant well. He shared a beautiful testimony about the Sacrament. And I'm better for having been in his class yesterday.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. Dr. Shades posted at my blog and I'm hoping he will be back to answer some questions.

[Scottie]

Let's keep it simple - I have yet to see a rift develop between disparate groups in the Church over the Articles of Faith (a decent proxy for a "list" of Mormon Doctrine); have you?

I think this is a great point.

Does the separation between chapel vs internet Mormon include saving ordinances and/or teachings, or are they insignificant details that we like to hash out here?

[ryanelwood]

I can sort of see where Mr. Shade is coming from, in my own experience I do see people fall along the divide Shade provided pretty consistently. But Mr. Peterson is right, it is too simplistic to classify people into two groups, especially as internet Mormons and chapel Mormons. I found myself fall into the internet category long before I knew what the internet was. On my mission in the Northern California area, many missionaries began to take the views of what Mr. Shade calls internet Mormons, but I was on my mission just as the internet first began to infiltrate our homes. Most on my mission had had very little experience on the internet. I was in an area where Richard Baer lived and had some influence on the local churches, the "godmakers" was very popular among many of the local churches. In order to combat the anti-mormon sentiments, many of us would read FARMS, Hugh Nibley, and other apologetic works. This is what brought many of us to Shade's internet Mormon quasi category. It seems to me, if there is a divide, it is among those that care about answering critics and those that don't. Those that don't care about dealing with critics see no need to conform science and religion, reducing the geography of the Book of Mormon to mesoamerica, they just accept that the Hill Cumorah is in New York because they do not care what problems that may have, they may accept that all Lamanites are Native Americans because they do not care about DNA, they don't need to make sense of the Adam-God theory because they do not care to, etc, etc. These types are perfectly happy with there religion and could care less about those things that challenge their beliefs. The other group feels like they need to answer critics and therefore come up with ways to answer critics in a sophisticated manner which may entail shifting certain religious traditions. That is how I would classify the two groups. But the classification is still arbitrary. You have some Mormons care about one thing and not another. If you talked to every Mormon in a given congregation I assume you would have a jumble of opinions on all the different areas Mr. Shade has provided.

[Daniel Peterson]

Does the separation between chapel vs internet Mormon include saving ordinances and/or teachings, or are they insignificant details that we like to hash out here?

Even if the mythical chasm between "Chapel Mormonism" and "Internet Mormonism" actually existed, it wouldn't seem, according to its chief theoretician, to make for any difference regarding the saving ordinances or the central doctrines.

I don't actually know any "Internet Mormons" -- I've also never caught a glimpse of a snipe -- but, since I'm typically categorized as one by devotees of the mythology, it's probably worthwhile for me to mention that I love the temple, strongly support missionary efforts in my ward, attend convert baptisms when I can, believe in priesthood blessings (have had a truly remarkable, evidently miraculous, experience with one during the past couple of months), and the like. If there's a gap between me and regular "Chapel Mormons" on such matters, I'd like to know where it is.

[Lamanite]

Even if the mythical chasm between "Chapel Mormonism" and "Internet Mormonism" actually existed, it wouldn't seem, according to its chief theoretician, to make for any difference regarding the saving ordinances or the central doctrines.

I don't actually know any "Internet Mormons" -- I've also never caught a glimpse of a snipe -- but, since I'm typically categorized as one by devotees of the mythology, it's probably worthwhile for me to mention that I love the temple, strongly support missionary efforts in my ward, attend convert baptisms when I can, believe in priesthood blessings (have had a truly remarkable, evidently miraculous, experience with one during the past couple of months), and the like. If there's a gap between me and regular "Chapel Mormons" on such matters, I'd like to know where it is.

Well said. I concur.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Scottie]

On the flip side, I'm not sure it's any more right for the church to categorize members into active, semi-active and inactive categories. There are all colors of the rainbow of activity level in the church.

Why do it? It helps to know the audience you are talking to. You would speak differently to an active member than an inactive member, right?

Same for me. I talk to chapel Mormons completely different than I would an internet Mormon. It does sort of help to categorize people in my mind, just as I suspect it helps you to categorize someone as inactive.

[ryanelwood]

Even if the mythical chasm between "Chapel Mormonism" and "Internet Mormonism" actually existed, it wouldn't seem, according to its chief theoretician, to make for any difference regarding the saving ordinances or the central doctrines.

I don't actually know any "Internet Mormons" -- I've also never caught a glimpse of a snipe -- but, since I'm typically categorized as one by devotees of the mythology, it's probably worthwhile for me to mention that I love the temple, strongly support missionary efforts in my ward, attend convert baptisms when I can, believe in priesthood blessings (have had a truly remarkable, evidently miraculous, experience with one during the past couple of months), and the like. If there's a gap between me and regular "Chapel Mormons" on such matters, I'd like to know where it is.

I would assume someone like Mr. Shade would say that the gap is what your views are about Book of Mormon geography or infallible prophets. But to call it a chasm and that there is an impending war between different views is ridiculous. I assume when you were Bishop you never once said to your congregation, "Alright, let me dispel some popular myths and traditions about Book of Mormon geography..." Or that you did anything else to bridge the "chasm" between you and other members.

[ryanelwood]

On the flip side, I'm not sure it's any more right for the church to categorize members into active, semi-active and inactive categories. There are all colors of the rainbow of activity level in the church.

Why do it? It helps to know the audience you are talking to. You would speak differently to an active member than an inactive member, right?

Same for me. I talk to chapel Mormons completely different than I would an internet Mormon. It does sort of help to categorize people in my mind, just as I suspect it helps you to categorize someone as inactive.

I can see what you are saying. While I see the divide between the categories as arbitrary, constructed models are easier to work with and provide a starting point for discussion. Historians knowingly create arbitrary models and categories to better understand the past all the time because it is easier to work with.

[Lamanite]

On the flip side, I'm not sure it's any more right for the church to categorize members into active, semi-active and inactive categories. There are all colors of the rainbow of activity level in the church.

Why do it? It helps to know the audience you are talking to. You would speak differently to an active member than an inactive member, right?

Same for me. I talk to chapel Mormons completely different than I would an internet Mormon. It does sort of help to categorize people in my mind, just as I suspect it helps you to categorize someone as inactive.

Damn good point. I concur.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Sargon]

If one insists on labeling the extremes of the theological/intellectual spectrum in question, I take issue with the labels that Shades has chosen.

The dichotomy falsely implies that "internet" mormons don't ever sit in a chapel or humbly listen to the words of the prophets in General Conference. It also suggests that chapel mormons are oblivious to the various issues often discussed on internet message boards.

Let's bring up a few case examples.

John Tvetdnes. How would we label him in this proposed dichotomy? He presumably sits in the chapel at least once a week for a little over an hour, and he presumably executes the responsibilities of whatever church calling he has been sustained and set apart for. We also know that he has done significant work in LDS scholarship. He has published various articles and books. Nevertheless, we never see him on internet message boards.

It wouldn't be accurate to say that Tvetdnes is a chapel mormon, because we know he is very well informed in controversial LDS issues. It wouldn't be accurate to call him an internet mormon either, since he has virtually no presence in the internet message board skirmishes.

Consider John Welch, John Sorenson, Kent Brown, or the countless LDS whose names we don't know who similarly are neither "chapel" nor "internet" mormons (or are both?).

The dichotomy is designed to be viewed in the same vein as republican/democrat, pro-life/pro-choice or other dichotomies which really do exist which describe two incompatible paradigms. It just isn't an accurate way of viewing the issue.

[Rommelator]

I think this is a great point.

Does the separation between chapel vs internet Mormon include saving ordinances and/or teachings, or are they insignificant details that we like to hash out here?

I believe the latter.

To me, the dichotomy is silly because, IMHO, the things that we are supposedly split about are not consequential to salvation. Who cares whether or not a Latter-day Saint holds to LGT or HGT, for example? Who cares if a Latter-day Saints subscribes to Rodney Meldrum's views on Book of Mormon geography over Brant Gardner or vice-a-versa? Are they following the Gospel of Christ and trying to help others? Are they staying true to their covenants? To me, that is what counts.

Now, granted, I think that these issues are important and that we should be discussing them. "By Study and Also by Faith", right? But they are secondary to following the Gospel and they are not consequential to salvation and exaltation. I can say that I am 99.99999% sure that Jesus is not going to ask you at the pearly gates if you hold to a local or global flood theory.