Chapel Mormons

[WalkerW]

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

I think Jeff was trying to provide context. One must understand religious practices within religious contexts.

In my experience with Redefined, it is this religious context that she blatantly ignores. I have explained several times that it doesn't matter if you reject the supernatural, they didn't. And since we are studying their actions, we must understand their beliefs. You don't have to accept the beliefs, but to fully understand the reason behind their actions, we must acknowledge them. Failing to take them into account is, in my mind, completely absurd.

It is similar to the following:

"Why do you eat bread and drink water at church?"

"It is a reminder and representation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, an emblem of His Atonement, and a renewal of our covenants with God."

"Well, I don't believe in God and the Atonement. You all must do it because you get hungry."

[Calm]

And sorry to break it to you, but if you believe the Hill Cumorah was in Mesoamerica and Noah's flood didn't cover the whole planet, you're an Internet Mormon.

Not according to Shades' test.

[ttribe]

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?

Some do equate celestial marriage with polygamy (and debate such vociferously on this very board); I was just seeking clarity.

[cinepro]

Not according to Shades' test.

I don't know what his "test" said, but he did include them as that characteristics that can exist:

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

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 FARMS is correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located somewhere in Southern Mexico.

Link not included - Quoted for reference purposes only

[Calm]

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?

The demonstration of the lack of consistency is about the predictive value of the theory for me.

Even identifying proponents of the global flood theory in my experience does nothing to help me know about the rest of a proponent's beliefs.

It certainly does not demonstrate any schism present that was at least once fundamental to Shades' theory (don't know if he still hangs on to that piece of nonsense).

The Iron Rod/Liahona theory has more predictive value imo because it addresses a type of behaviour rather than specific details of belief. IOW, it is about what someone does with their beliefs, how they apply them rather than the belief itself.

With the huge variation in beliefs that occur in every last member I've well, even the oldest and youngest and conservative and liberal (in theology or politics), I just don't see a theory that is based on categorizing membership by a few of the nonsalvific beliefs as all that revelant.

And certainly the evidence is lacking supporting it. At best people draw from their anecdotal experience, but usually in the stories given it ends up not being about the belief itself, but about a style of response to beliefs and behaivours....something much better addressed with the Iron Rod/Liahona theory.

[Calm]

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.

If it is that confusing what an "internet mormon" is, then as a label it is useless.

You don't have to go on the Internet to be an Internet mormon

Then the choice of "internet" to describe this group is not only poor, but counterintuitive

, 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.

The division was, however, once upon a time a fundamental part of Shades' theory. It is hardly surprising then that those familiar with that theory would protest in such a fashion.

[Calm]

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

Any theory that divides individuals into two behavioural types is definitely going to be lacking. Arriving at a theory that is complex enough to deal with variations, yet simple enough to be useful is not that easy.

[Calm]

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.

There were quite a few posts that categorized the prophets and God on one side of the 'divide' with FARMS contributors and other so-called "internet mormons" on the opposite side.

I think what they were trying to do with such comments is obvious, especially when those doing the categorizing didn't believe in the prophets or even God themselves.

[Redefined]

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-

Couldn't the women have married into celestial marriages with other men? Wouldn't they recieve the same blessings? What about the women who had husbands already?

[Calm]

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.

I have not found the same usefulness. In fact making assumptions this way has actually impeded my understanding of individuals' positions.

The problem with stereotypes is that they may be self-fulfilling if we are only paying attention to the aspects identified by that stereotype.

It is also possible, cinepro, that you've managed to refine the theory for you so that it is beneficial, but unless the theory as given generally (and not any personal adaptations) can be demonstrated to be a consistently useful predictive tool, simply because you've found it helpful in framing your own ideas does not mean it is a valid method.

I have a friend who finds astrology to be a very useful tool in helping him learn about and deal with people. Unfortunately, I've not seen his success repeated all that often (and he is quite successful with it though for a different reason imo than he believes).

[Jeff K.]

Couldn't the women have married into celestial marriages with other men? Wouldn't they recieve the same blessings? What about the women who had husbands already?

You need to reread his post redefined, your questions were already answered.

[Redefined]

You need to reread his post redefined, your questions were already answered.

I see what you mean.

[Redefined]

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-

I'll try this again. . . I'm hearing that the benefit for these women were to have familial bonds in heaven that wouldn't have existed without these sealings. So that leads me to the thought that it isn't for bringing forth fruit, but to be bonded as a bigger family. If so wouldn't it serve women to be sealed to more than one man so that they too can have the reward of familial bonds with loved ones?

[wenglund]

Couldn't the women have married into celestial marriages with other men? Wouldn't they recieve the same blessings? What about the women who had husbands already?

You must be straining terribly to mis the simple and obvious point. The women weren't compelled to marry Joseph. They could have chosen to be married to other men, and to eventually be sealed to other men (some in fact did, while others did both). However, absent the sealings to Joseph, dear friends of Joseph would not have had what they believed to be the desired advantage of being eternal family to Joseph. Since they (the women an their families) wanted that advantage, they voluntarily agreed to the sealings. This seems perfectly reasonable and just to me.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Redefined]

You must be straining terribly to mis the simple and obvious point. The women weren't compelled to marry Joseph. They could have chosen to be married to other men, and to eventually be sealed to other men (some in fact did, while others did both). However, absent the sealings to Joseph, dear friends of Joseph would not have had what they believed to be the desired advantage of being eternal family to Joseph. Since they (the women an their families) wanted that advantage, they voluntarily agreed to the sealings. This seems perfectly reasonable and just to me.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So some of these women gave up their advantage after Joseph Smith's death?

Added. . . if there were no advantage, would these women had agreed to the proposal?

[wenglund]

I'll try this again. . . I'm hearing that the benefit for these women were to have familial bonds in heaven that wouldn't have existed without these sealings. So that leads me to the thought that it isn't for bringing forth fruit, but to be bonded as a bigger family. If so wouldn't it serve women to be sealed to more than one man so that they too can have the reward of familial bonds with loved ones?

That might make sense to those who have an overly-simplistic view of eternal families, and who fail to consider critical familial factors such as order, divine design, and purpose.

I believe that part of the reason you may be struggling to grasp what I have suggested, is because you are unwittingly attempting to conform the eternal and godly to your finite and human way of thinking, rather than wisely the other way around. You are essentially making God into your image, rather than letting God make you into his image.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

So some of these women gave up their advantage after Joseph Smith's death?

Or they and others learned a more nuanced view of sealing which eventually culminated in sealings occurring to legal parents only.

[wenglund]

So some of these women gave up their advantage after Joseph Smith's death?

That's not what I suggested. Where are you getting this from?

Added. . . if there were no advantage, would these women had agreed to the proposal?

Not if they were comatose. (I answered in this way because I see little value in responding intelligently to what I view as an absurd hypothetical. I prefer, instead, to speak to what I view as real. Again, to each their own.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought I liked the Liahona/Iron Rod dicotomy until I actually read Poll's essay, which immediately put me off it.

Truth be told, I was never a major fan myself. But, compared to the simplistic either/or of the "Internet/Mormon"/"Chapel Mormon" dichotomy, with its ridiculous invention of "two wholly distinct religions" and "two entirely separate churches," it's a concept of positively transcendent genius.

I think Mike Ash's response to Chapel/Internet nailed it as a debating tool.

Quite so. It's a piece of embarassingly manipulative propaganda.

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.

Absolutely.

But those wouldn't serve the particular apostate agenda that is in play with the "Internet Mormon"/"Chapel Mormon" idea.

[Calm]

Quite so. It's a piece of embarassingly manipulative propaganda.

Absolutely.

But those wouldn't serve the particular apostate agenda that is in play with the "Internet Mormon"/"Chapel Mormon" idea.

For those that are interested in the original discussions surrounding Shades' formulation of his theory see this post http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/44292-an-interview-with-dr-shades/page__view__findpost__p__1208689511 for links to relevant threads.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Then I suggest that perhaps you've fallen into the same fallacy of assuming a binding Church doctrinal position where there is none.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is similar to the following:

"Why do you eat bread and drink water at church?"

"It is a reminder and representation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, an emblem of His Atonement, and a renewal of our covenants with God."

"Well, I don't believe in God and the Atonement. You all must do it because you get hungry."

I like the example.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The demonstration of the lack of consistency is about the predictive value of the theory for me.

Even identifying proponents of the global flood theory in my experience does nothing to help me know about the rest of a proponent's beliefs.

It certainly does not demonstrate any schism present that was at least once fundamental to Shades' theory (don't know if he still hangs on to that piece of nonsense).

The Iron Rod/Liahona theory has more predictive value imo because it addresses a type of behaviour rather than specific details of belief. IOW, it is about what someone does with their beliefs, how they apply them rather than the belief itself.

With the huge variation in beliefs that occur in every last member I've well, even the oldest and youngest and conservative and liberal (in theology or politics), I just don't see a theory that is based on categorizing membership by a few of the nonsalvific beliefs as all that revelant.

And certainly the evidence is lacking supporting it. At best people draw from their anecdotal experience, but usually in the stories given it ends up not being about the belief itself, but about a style of response to beliefs and behaivours....something much better addressed with the Iron Rod/Liahona theory.

Well said. Well informed.

[Scott Lloyd]

a link for the enjoyment of our friends, the proponents of the "chapel Mormon" model.

You saw me crying in the chapel.

The tears I shed were tears of joy

I know the meaning of contentment

Now I am happy with the Lord

Just a plain and simple chapel

Where humble people go to pray

I pray the Lord that I'll grow stronger

As I live from day to day

I've searched and I've searched

But I couldn't find

No way on earth

To gain peace of mind

Now I'm happy in the chapel

Where people are of one accord

We gather in the chapel

Just to sing and praise the Lord

Did somebody say "stereotype"?

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

I think you've nailed it here, Scott.