Chapel Mormons

[wenglund]

Yes, I would agree that criminals shouldn't be given equal treatment.

Why not? (I am asking, not because I disagree--I dont', but rather because I think exploring the question will help you to understand that there are more important things, and more important objectives, than equal treatment.)

However, women should be treated equal when they didn't do anything that would have singled them out for unequal treatment.

*This is me adjusting my equal treatment philosophy*

That's wonderful. Let's see if we can adjust it even more. Should young children be treated equal to adults in terms of drivers licenses, consumption of contolled substances (like tobacco and alcohol), marriage, sexual relations, voting, and a host of other activities currently reserved by the government to adults?

If not, why not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[dblagent007]

I take it that as long as there is one person who doesn't fit neatly into one of the two categories then the entire chapel mormon/internet mormon theory implodes. Is the theory really that rigid?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I take it that as long as there is one person who doesn't fit neatly into one of the two categories then the entire chapel mormon/internet mormon theory implodes. Is the theory really that rigid?

No, but the categories suggested are really that pointless, and the conclusions reached therefrom (two completely separate religions!) are really that wrong.

[dblagent007]

I have found the chapel mormon/internet mormon distinction to be a reasonably accurate way to characterize the theological differences between significant groups of members. Is it perfect? No. There will always be some that don't neatly fit into either mold, but I don't think there are enough outliers to discard the theory completely.

Dan, you have said repeatedly that when you take the test the result is always "chapel mormon." Would you mind sharing your answers?

[Redefined]

Why not? (I am asking, not because I disagree--I dont', but rather because I think exploring the question will help you to understand that there are more important things, and more important objectives, than equal treatment.)

That's wonderful. Let's see if we can adjust it even more. Should young children be treated equal to adults in terms of drivers licenses, consumption of contolled substances (like tobacco and alcohol), marriage, sexual relations, voting, and a host of other activities currently reserved by the government to adults?

If not, why not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for your concern Wade, but I am capable of reason. . . all on my own.

I just assumed that members of this forum would understand the basic concept of equality as it applies to male/female, no matter what race. If a woman commits the same crime as a man, I would expect that she is equally-treated for such a crime. Same goes for if a black man commits the same crime as a white man, I would expect that he is equally-treated for the crime. If regard is given to one, regard must be given to all. So one cannot compare the female equality to males with a subgroup within the primary structure.

I have my own beliefs on children's rights, which doesn't fit the conventional thinking. (That would be a whole other topic).

[Deborah]

Thanks for your concern Wade, but I am capable of reason. . . all on my own.

I just assumed that members of this forum would understand the basic concept of equality as it applies to male/female, no matter what race.

This whole discussion on equality is rather pointless as there has always been and always will be inequality. We don't even treat our own children "equally" all the time. One child may have special needs and thus require more time and attention. That doesn't mean we love the others less, only that in meeting the needs of each child we must in some cases give them an unequal amount of time and attention.

I take umbrage at the accusation that women under Mormon polygamy were somehow considered not equal to men. To me the whole concept opens up opportunities for women to pursue their talents within the protection of an extended family. Indeed we have seen women sent to Congress to speak for themselves on the issue.

Furthermore, you are blinded by your own prejudices and without understanding of the bigger picture. Sealings play an important part in the linking chain necessary in the heavens for whatever reason. How this all works out in the eternities will be something we can't comprehend right now. I personally believe it's not as important who you are sealed to as to it is being sealed and part of that eternal link. People who look at the past and make judgments are looking through eyes that lack peripheral vision and they can't see beyond what is in their very limited perspective.

[tsubotsubo]

I have found the chapel mormon/internet mormon distinction to be a reasonably accurate way to characterize the theological differences between significant groups of members. Is it perfect? No. There will always be some that don't neatly fit into either mold, but I don't think there are enough outliers to discard the theory completely.

Dan, you have said repeatedly that when you take the test the result is always "chapel mormon." Would you mind sharing your answers?

I completely agree with you. When I used the term "Internet mormon", some people instantly start to panic, going on about how there's no 'divide' in the church, or about how they know mormons into church history, who don't go on the Internet, but all they're basically doing is showing that they don't know what the term "Internet mormon" means.

You don't have to go on the Internet to be an Internet mormon, and if you create two groups, one for short mormons, and one for tall mormons, you could place most members in either one of the group, but it doesn't mean the church is divided.

[Jeff K.]

I disagree with your view. I do so simply because the dichotomy does not work, not that the dichotomy is flawed, but the premise is that somehow those with greater knowledge have some sort of superior position in faith and adherence to teh words of the prophets. It is not about panic believe me, it tends to much more about a tool that simply is not workable.

It has already been amply explained how it doesn't work. It doesn't matter where "you go". With the tall and short analogy, you have a very good dividing line that is easily seen, but no such line really exists since too many characteristics overlap, the overlapping is so huge it makes the model unworkable and therefore little more than exercise in futility.

[Jeff K.]

I also see a certain self righteous priestcraft involved in the characterizations of "internet Mormons" and "chapel Mormons". Oh we just know more, so somehow our faith is different or distinct. It is disturbing, not because it is true, but because some people believe it to be true.

I think a better characterization might be:

Those who believe in the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy and those who do not.

One groups is certainly more knowledgeable of the church and its history and spheres of culture today than the other. Generally its those who don't fall for the internet/chapel Mormon fad.

[Kevin Christensen]

I thought I liked the Liahona/Iron Rod dicotomy until I actually read Poll's essay, which immediately put me off it. I think Mike Ash's response to Chapel/Internet nailed it as a debating tool. Instead of those dicotomies, I much prefer more diverse and complex schemes, such as the Myers-Briggs Types, which sixteen types that provide better descriptions, and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, which allows for individual development.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Jeff K.]

As an INTJ I tend to agree.

[wenglund]

Thanks for your concern Wade, but I am capable of reason. . . all on my own. I just assumed that members of this forum would understand the basic concept of equality as it applies to male/female, no matter what race. If a woman commits the same crime as a man, I would expect that she is equally-treated for such a crime. Same goes for if a black man commits the same crime as a white man, I would expect that he is equally-treated for the crime. If regard is given to one, regard must be given to all. So one cannot compare the female equality to males with a subgroup within the primary structure. I have my own beliefs on children's rights, which doesn't fit the conventional thinking. (That would be a whole other topic).

I really wish you would have at least tried to answer my questions because that may have helped you to avoid continually missing a very critical point--that being, if the notion of equality (including between the sexes) is always given primacy over other principles, the result will at times be asinine.

For example, following your assertion (i.e. "If a woman commits the same crime as a man, I would expect that she is equally-treated for such a crime") to its logical conclusion, then one must conclude that since men entering prisons are strip-searched by men, then women entering prison ought to be strip-searched by men as well. Since men in prisons have male cell-mates, then women in prison ought to have male cell mates, and vice-versa. If male pedophiles can opt for chemical castration, then females ought to be able to opt for chemical castration. If men have stand-up urnals, then women ought to have stand-up urnals. If men on chain-gangs are required to lift heavy materials, then women on chain-gangs ought o be required to do the same. if female prisoners are exempted from certain labors during a given time of the month, then male prisoners ought to be afforded the same. And, the list can go on and on, particularly if we extend beyond prison life to every-day careers, sports, familial roles, etc. etc.

This is ridiculous. Right?

Of course it is. It is ridiculous because the notion of "equal treatment" is blind to obvious physiological differences between the sexes, which practical reason suggests ought to be respectively accomodated.

In other words, common sense suggests that people's best interest ought to take preference over "equal treatment". One's guiding philosophical principle, then, ought to be "what is in our best interest", rather than "equal treatment"--and this applies to differences between males and females, adults and children, law-abiding citizens and criminals, educated and uneducated, motivated and lazy, miltary and civilians, citizens and aliens, etc. etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Redefined]

Hi Wade,

So how was Joseph Smith applying polygamy in the best interest of women?

[wenglund]

I believe that, to a point, generalization and categorizations are quite helpful and even necessary (including, at times, those of a bimary kind--i.e. male/female, young/old, rich/poor, etc.).

The point at which they become problematic is when they are used to stereotype.

To me, the common use of the Chaple/Internet Mormon dichotomy is clearly stereotypical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe that, to a point, generalization and categorizations are quite helpful and even necessary (including, at times, those of a bimary kind--i.e. male/female, young/old, rich/poor, etc.).

The point at which they become problematic is when they are used to stereotype.

To me, the coomon use of the Chaple/Internet Mormon dichotomy is clearly stereotypical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not just clear, but painfully obvious, that it is stereotypical. My theory is that it arose when apostates/anti-Mormons found that it was not so easy as they thought to marginalize believing Latter-day Saints. Said critics found the defenses they encountered much more sophisticated than they had expected. So they devised a false dichotomy whereby they could claim that true Mormons (what they called the "chapel" variety) were a world apart from those whom they encountered in Internet debates. The critics' script is that the Mormon theology cannot be defended unless it is altered, watered down, morphed, whatever, into something apart from its standard orthodoxy.

That's all nonsense, of course, but that's what I perceive their thinking to be. You see it manifested from time to time when some critic who tries to attack some unauthoritative specimen of folk doctrine complains when it is pointed out to him that his perception of the Church's position in actuality is not doctrinal.

[Jeff K.]

Hi Wade,

So how was Joseph Smith applying polygamy in the best interest of women?

How does celestial marriage apply to the best interest of women?

[Scott Lloyd]

How does celestial marriage apply to the best interest of women?

Of course, Redefined will counter that she doesn't believe in celestial marriage -- or any kind of marriage at all after death, or even in the continuation of gender identity.

So, round and round it goes. Her utter rejection of any part of the Mormon paradigm means that it is impossible to arrive at any sort of meeting of the minds with her.

[ttribe]

How does celestial marriage apply to the best interest of women?

Celestial marriage can, and does, exist outside the practice of polygamy. This isn't the best possible response.

[cinepro]

I could be wrong, but I suspect one reason this supposed distinction is so important to those who insist upon its validity is because it suggests division in the ranks,

Can't speak for others, but as I've said, the usefulness of the distinction for me is that it has allowed me to better understand the different LDS I talk with about doctrinal and historical issues, and adapt my approach and vocabulary accordingly.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not just clear, but painfully obvious, that it is stereotypical. My theory is that it arose when apostates/anti-Mormons found that it was not so easy as they thought to marginalize believing Latter-day Saints. Said critics found the defenses they encountered much more sophisticated than they had expected. So they devised a false dichotomy whereby they could claim that true Mormons (what they called the "chapel" variety) were a world apart from those whom they encountered in Internet debates. The critics' script is that the Mormon theology cannot be defended unless it is altered, watered down, morphed, whatever, into something apart from its standard orthodoxy.

That's all nonsense, of course, but that's what I perceive their thinking to be. You see it manifested from time to time when some critic who tries to attack some unauthoritative specimen of folk doctrine complains when it is pointed out to him that his perception of the Church's position in actuality is not doctrinal.

This fast-moving thread went to a new page just after I posted this, so I'm bringing it up to the top hoping to give it better visibility.

[Jeff K.]

Celestial marriage can, and does, exist outside the practice of polygamy. This isn't the best possible response.

I don't equate it with polygamy, I simply state the polygamous marriages were within the realm of celestial marriage and therefore, what is the benefit?

[Jeff K.]

Can't speak for others, but as I've said, the usefulness of the distinction for me is that it has allowed me to better understand the different LDS I talk with about doctrinal and historical issues, and adapt my approach and vocabulary accordingly.

And to me that is why it doesn't work since the most firmly held believers and followers of conference talks also tend to have the largest amount of primary source data in regard to church history.

[cinepro]

The critics' script is that the Mormon theology cannot be defended unless it is altered, watered down, morphed, whatever, into something apart from its standard orthodoxy.

Based on what I've seen in theories regarding limited floods, pre-Adamites, physical death and evolution before the fall, temporal age of the Earth >6,000 years etc., "the critics" may have a point.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

So how was Joseph Smith applying polygamy in the best interest of women?

In addition to the protective and empowering spirit of promise associated with the sealings, if you look carefully at many, if not all, of Joseph's sealings, the intent was clearly to create eternal familial bonds between dear friends. Dear loved-ones who weren't biologicaly tied to Joseph's family, were united together with him for eternity through the sealings. I see that as a very good thing for all the women involved, as well as the men.

I think that once our minds mature beyond the superficiality and temporality of 21st century, western romance, and become enlightened about eternal, godly love, it then becomes easier to understand the divinely intended nature of marriage and families, and also to an extent the discretionary mind of God in terms of polygamy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It's not just clear, but painfully obvious, that it is stereotypical. My theory is that it arose when apostates/anti-Mormons found that it was not so easy as they thought to marginalize believing Latter-day Saints. Said critics found the defenses they encountered much more sophisticated than they had expected. So they devised a false dichotomy whereby they could claim that true Mormons (what they called the "chapel" variety) were a world apart from those whom they encountered in Internet debates. The critics' script is that the Mormon theology cannot be defended unless it is altered, watered down, morphed, whatever, into something apart from its standard orthodoxy.

That's all nonsense, of course, but that's what I perceive their thinking to be. You see it manifested from time to time when some critic who tries to attack some unauthoritative specimen of folk doctrine complains when it is pointed out to him that his perception of the Church's position in actuality is not doctrinal.

That is my perception as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-