Chapel Mormons

[Pahoran]

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.

Double,

I could have predicted your approval for this false dichotomy purely on the basis of knowing your usual positions on Mormon things.

The usefulness of this debating tool is not to be found in its being "accurate," but in its being of polemical utility. Its sole and entire reason for existence is that it enables the user to marginalise, if not dismiss, an opponent. "Well, you say that the Book of Mormon supports a limited geography, but that's because you're an Internet Mormon. Most Chapel Mormons have never even heard of such a notion. They believe that the Nephites and Lamanites inhabited the entire continent, and that all Native Americans are descended exclusively from them. And that's why the Book of Mormon is toast, given the DNA evidence."

This is the imperative driving the whole imaginary "Chapel/Internet Mormon divide." It is to disqualify all informed apologetics and poison the well. It was invented for entirely self-serving and dishonest purposes, and has never been maintained for any others.

Or, as Dan Peterson said, much more succinctly:

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

IMHO, we can count the number of honest critics of the Church in this forum by counting those critics who have, on this thread, renounced, or at least refused to endorse, this false dichotomy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

The strange thing to me, Cinepro, is that I have never once felt the need to 'adapt my approach and vocabulary' when speaking with the diverse array of members in my ward. Whatever diversity exists is simply not theologically relevant in practice.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

It's like we are damned either way. If we all understood matters the exact same way, even down into the minutiae, it would be further evidence that the Church really is a mind-controlling cult. Since members actually harbour a vast array of beliefs outside of 'binding Church doctrinal positions,' this is evidence of significant theological divergences. <sigh>

[Avatar4321]

What's wrong with it is the fact that many within the church do not agree with it either. Excuse me if I fail to agree after reading Jacob 2:30. It is failed logic to ask me to look at your literature to back up your point; else, you have just proved JW's, scientology, muslims, etc. correct because their books say they are the correct religion. Have 'the church' come out and say, this event happened because...... and I will respect (may not agree) your belief. When many people speak on a subject and all have different explanations, the validity gets watered down.

I was unaware that people had to agree with it for that to have been one of the motivations and uses of it.

[Jeff K.]

That is pretty much it Humba, a false dichotomy, and in practice no one has adopted the views held in order to speak to members. When I speak to my own ward or a Spanish speaking ward, the material and discussion are exactly the same, there is no imagined need to nuance the presentation simply because the Spanish speakers might be "chapel" mormons. I am not surprised when sometimes a member in a Spanish speaking ward also stands up recounts how his great great grandfather was one of the settlers in the Mexican colonies. Does that make them internet Mormons? Chapel Mormons? No, the unworkable dichotomy has to be rejected. They are simply Saints of the Latter-Days.

Am I blind for believing such a thing? No, in fact I would turn it around and say the blindness is an effect of bitterness for those who don't like the church. They are desperate to seek some flaw in a flawless diamond that they wish to exploit. It must be frustrating for them. They are blinded by a false hope that cannot exist.

[Avatar4321]

It sounds like a lot of the dispute is over the use of the term "internet" to describe one type of Mormon, and "chapel" to describe another.

Arguments are made that "internet Mormons" have existed before the internet, and therefore the whole dichotomy is flawed.

And if one is perceived as an "internet Mormon," does that mean they do not attend, or have any rightful place in, the chapel?

Leaving aside the possibly pejorative connotations of the terms, it does seem beyond dispute that there are two types of Mormons in this regard: (1) Those who attempt to comport their religious beliefs to extra-religious fields such as biology, geology, genetics and demographics; and, (2) Those who do not.

And I am not saying that one is necessarily better than the other. Heaven knows I was happier being a member of group number 2 than I am as a member of group number 1.

If we can take the terms, "internet Mormon" and "chapel Mormon" out of the equation, are we at least able to agree to this much?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think the dispute is over the idea that these multiple types of mormons actually exist.

As I said before. We are all saints. We are all learning at different rates and different things. Does that mean we are completely different faiths?

[Avatar4321]

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?

Theological differences? We dont have theological differences.

[cinepro]

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

Words of love from one Internet Mormon to another...

[Pahoran]

I once suggested to the good "Dr" that the two labels might be more useful if they were applied to actually distinct groups, thus:

Chapel Mormons: Actual Mormons who worship in actual chapels.

Internet Mormons: People who are Mormons only in their Internet personas. In much the same way as 45-year-old men can have Internet personas as teenage girls.

For some reason, he wasn't too keen.

Regards,

Pahoran

[dblagent007]

Double,

I could have predicted your approval for this false dichotomy purely on the basis of knowing your usual positions on Mormon things.

I am flattered that you have been following my posts so closely that you have become intimately familiar with my positions on Mormon things. (Honey, is that you?)

The usefulness of this debating tool is not to be found in its being "accurate," but in its being of polemical utility. Its sole and entire reason for existence is that it enables the user to marginalise, if not dismiss, an opponent. "Well, you say that the Book of Mormon supports a limited geography, but that's because you're an Internet Mormon. Most Chapel Mormons have never even heard of such a notion. They believe that the Nephites and Lamanites inhabited the entire continent, and that all Native Americans are descended exclusively from them. And that's why the Book of Mormon is toast, given the DNA evidence."

That's your example of marginalizing and dismissing an opponent - that someone in a debate will counter LGT arguments by arguing that a large group of other members do not believe in them? Wow, if that's all it takes to marginalize and dismiss LGT arguments, then I guess critics have been approaching this debate all wrong.

My experience has been that members can be roughly grouped based on how they view certain doctrines (many of which are listed in Shade's questionnaire). Most objections have been either (a) the labels are offensive or inaccurate or (b the different groups don't perfectly account for every member in the church. As for the former, the reason for using the two labels has been explained above. I don't see it as being all that offensive. Perhaps you could suggest better less offensive labels. I don't find the theory useful because of the perceived derogatory nature of the labels so if you come up with something better I would be happy to adopt it. As for the latter, the theory isn't meant to perfectly account for everyone in the Church.

This is the imperative driving the whole imaginary "Chapel/Internet Mormon divide." It is to disqualify all informed apologetics and poison the well. It was invented for entirely self-serving and dishonest purposes, and has never been maintained for any others.

Yeah, it's a devastating response to apologetic arguments. Whenever a critic is losing an argument, he need only drop the terms "chapel mormon" and "internet mormon" and the apologist is completely marginalized and dismissed.

What a load of bunk.

IMHO, we can count the number of honest critics of the Church in this forum by counting those critics who have, on this thread, renounced, or at least refused to endorse, this false dichotomy.

You wouldn't be saying that for its polemical utility as a way to marginalize and dismiss your opponents would you?

[Calm]

Leaving aside the possibly pejorative connotations of the terms, it does seem beyond dispute that there are two types of Mormons in this regard: (1) Those who attempt to comport their religious beliefs to extra-religious fields such as biology, geology, genetics and demographics; and, (2) Those who do not.

I would indeed dispute this because I've seen many LDS who apply science and such to a greater understanding of certain of their beliefs (often the Word of Wisdom) who rely solely on faith and personal interpretation in other aspects.

Until it can be statistically shown that there is a signficant predictive value of identfying a certain method of approach in one area of someone's belief system for identifying the same method in other areas and this method is science or such centered and not something else, I would be very reluctant to accept this as "beyond dispute" because I've seen way too many examples of overlap...much more than I've seen of consistency over time.

[Calm]

That's your example of marginalizing and dismissing an opponent - that someone in a debate will counter LGT arguments by arguing that a large group of other members do not believe in them? Wow, if that's all it takes to marginalize and dismiss LGT arguments, then I guess critics have been approaching this debate all wrong.

I do not beleive P is saying they are successful at marginalizing, just that it is an attempt to do so.

Conversations often shifted into the believer on the defensive justifying their own beliefs through scriptures, prophetic statements etc. so the argument was effective in that manner until people got tired of it and began refusing to accept the premise outright or play the game.

It is a poor attempt imo since there is no evidence that it is an accurate evaluation.

I would say from my own observations that this was indeed how it started, there are variations on the theme that exist now that have other purposes, some may even be sincere in their belief their variation is a valid approach. I know of none save the original one that has actually been tested (though to be honest that 'test' would never have passed even the most basic statitistical research class assignment).

[Droopy]

As best I can trace this concept, it was started by Mr. Shades over at the Other Board as a conceptual wedge with which to divide the good Mormons - secularistic, skeptical, liberal Mormons leaning away from the Church and questioning its truth claims from an intellectual standpoint, and the standard, garden variety Mormon, a slovenly minded, marginally educated, easily led and indoctrinated simpleton who cares little for deeper intellectual pursuits.

Its just an instantiation of an intellectual elitism that, for all its pretensions, only really shines within the arena of ideas when its alone and unopposed. When the battle is joined, it delivers much less than it promises.

[Calm]

I once suggested to the good "Dr" that the two labels might be more useful if they were applied to actually distinct groups, thus:

Chapel Mormons: Actual Mormons who worship in actual chapels.

Internet Mormons: People who are Mormons only in their Internet personas. In much the same way as 45-year-old men can have Internet personas as teenage girls.

For some reason, he wasn't too keen.

I never understood why when time and time again it was pointed out to DS that the labeling was counterintuitive (in that there were many so-called Chapel Mormons on the internet and so-called internet mormons who never even heard of the internet and that's just for starters) why he didn't attempt to find more appropriate labels. There were certainly a multitude of ones that fit his theory closer that were given to him, but he refused to consider any change.

[Calm]

As best I can trace this concept, it was started by Mr. Shades over at the Other Board as a conceptual wedge with which to divide the good Mormons - secularistic, skeptical, liberal Mormons leaning away from the Church and questioning its truth claims from an intellectual standpoint, and the standard, garden variety Mormon, a slovenly minded, marginally educated, easily led and indoctrinated simpleton who cares little for deeper intellectual pursuits.

Its just an instantiation of an intellectual elitism that, for all its pretensions, only really shines within the arena of ideas when its alone and unopposed. When the battle is joined, it delivers much less than it promises.

The Other board was not in existence. There was quite a bit of discussion on ZLMB (I believe some of the links are above) and then more on the FAIR board, which this board is a replacement for).

The divide was not along those lines. The theory addressed full believers--not skeptics, just tried to divide them into two camps. There was intellectual elistism present in the discussion that went along with the theory though.

Shades should be congratulated for at least putting the effort into articulating his theory and then attempting to construct a test to demonstrate it, but since he refused to follow any of the standard methodology suggestions that were given to him or to accept any criticism as valid enough to change his approach (his only change that I remember was an attempt to load the questions when the schism was not present in the original results, the majority of posters who took his test---myself included---having tested out as Chapel Mormons), I cannot be so complimentary about the actual results. When someone is so in love with a theory that he ignores all relevant criticism and hangs on to the theory in face of contradictory evidence, good science is an unlikely result.

[Droopy]

I was at ZLMB for years before Shade's board went up, but don't specifically remember the debate as it developed there. In any case, I first encountered it at the Other Board, and in all of its manifestations as there expressed, it appeared as nothing more than an appeal to snobbery in which "Internet" stands in for "intellectually sophisticated, educated, and tending toward naturalistic explanations for gospel claims" and "chapel" indicates

a general disinterest in the numerous historical problems and quandaries surrounding church history, BofM historicity, BofA authorship etc.,grounded in a simpleminded reliance on faith and uncritical acceptance of explanations by the Brethren.

I may have missed it at ZLMB, but I engaged it repeatedly for several years a the Trailer Park, and its nothing but a theoretical construct used to artificially divide the smart people (Shades and other, active or partially active LDS leaning toward secualristic/naturalistic understandings of church origins/history), from the unwashed (the rest of us who actually believe in the historicity of the BofM etc.)for polemical/critical purposes.

[Daniel Peterson]

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 suspect that this is precisely correct.

That's why I've always said that the absurd "Internet Mormon"/"Chapel Mormon" dichotomy was rather transparently agenda-driven. Otherwise, it seems to have little purpose.

I once suggested to the good "Dr" that the two labels might be more useful if they were applied to actually distinct groups, thus:

Chapel Mormons: Actual Mormons who worship in actual chapels.

Internet Mormons: People who are Mormons only in their Internet personas. In much the same way as 45-year-old men can have Internet personas as teenage girls.

For some reason, he wasn't too keen.

LOL. I love it.

[consiglieri]

I think the dispute is over the idea that these multiple types of mormons actually exist.

As I said before. We are all saints. We are all learning at different rates and different things. Does that mean we are completely different faiths?

I would think that many "types" of Mormons exist, above and beyond these two "types."

And even as between these two "types," there are obviously shades of gray on the continuum in between.

Of course it does not mean we are of completely different faiths, or even marginally different faiths.

We are all members of the same faith and likely attend the same "chapel." It is even possible we use the same "internet."

But I should expect we would see a similar typology in other faiths, as well--those who try to comport their beliefs with the findings of various scientific fields; and those who do not.

Those who do are likely to see a good deal more flexibility in their interpretation of the Bible, and may be more comfortable reading it as an ancient text reflecting the beliefs and world views of ancient cultures.

Those who do not are likely more prone to read their Bible inflexibly and only in terms of their current culture.

At least, that's been my limited experience.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

They typologies narrowed down to the two were attempts to set or create an artificial Mormon schism. If one were to look at them from the standpoint of original posts, one would notice that the classifications were not used to identify or catagorize a trend, rather to undermine one side. Consider how those called internet Mormons are supposedly (at least based on original postings) more "informed" on church history. In a sense this is ironic since the internet is indeed rife with innuendo and rumor, much of it hard to verify. Chapel Mormons were viewed as being faithful, but not well informed of church history, so their faith was often viewed in what can only be termed, faith of the ignorant.

As the proponents of this schism (some duped, some with more malicious intent) have been presented with mounting evidence that their view is not accurate in the least, that their model is inconsistent with reality, they have found themselves driven to say that some overlap must naturally occur. Now this is correct, but when the overlap is so great 9and this can be seen with the number of posters here who have from time to time been referred to derisively as "TBM"s who are also well versed with knowledge (enough to be called "internet Mormons")) then it must be acknowledged that the model or typography is unworkable, that it has no true meaning and is mainly a function of what might be called "schismatics". They seek to show or pronounce some sort of schism. Of course such an action cannot really exist since we as Latter-Day Saints have a convening powerful central authority in a prophet which would deter and nullify any real schism in the church (Rome vs Greek Orthodoxy had no such option, only claims of authority).

Now, unlike the schism between Rome and the Greek Orthodox church in which the schism was labeled late, those who profess the internet vs chapel Mormon model are in effect attempting to foist or create or even fabricate a schimatic model as acceptable. Once such a model is accepted, it becomes easier to dismiss opposing views as being "those views" rather than being forced to engage in an environment with the same orthodoxy.

For such a schism to exist (that of chapel Mormons versus internet Mormons) we would have to accept the illegitimacy of central church authority and doctrine. We would also have to accept that central church authority actively negates research into the history of the church and seeks to undermine those who wish to learn of its history. We would in effect have to accept a central tenet that church leadership has an underlying sub rosa agenda which by complicated conspiracy seeks to undermine the search for truth. Such designs have been expressed here by some posters on the board many times. Not surprisingly those same people seem to be advocates of the classification for "internet Mormons versus chapel Mormons". Would such a thing be merely coincidence?

[volgadon]

However, you're very correct in that there is this divide in the church. I see it very much most Sundays. Chapel mormons and Internet mormons see their religion through different eyes. Internet mormons, knowing all the 'dark' facts about Joseph Smith won't be insisting that he's perfect. If you say "The prophet isn't always right" to a chapel mormon, they'll most likely gasp, in utter shock, and reply "You can't say that!", while an Internet mormon will probably nod along. Chapel mormons have no reason to believe Joseph Smith isn't perfect, because they're very rarely told anything bad about him. If you go on the Internet, you have an endless stream of 'bad press' about Joseph Smith put infront of you, so you can't possibly believe he was perfect.

I wouldn't say the church is neccessarily 'divided' because of this, however.

Funny, my parents taught me at 7 that Joseph wasn't perfect. THis is long before any of us ever heard of the internet.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Funny, my parents taught me at 7 that Joseph wasn't perfect. THis is long before any of us ever heard of the internet.

I brought up that fact that I had learned much about alot of things before the internet was even around. So the whole "Internet/Chapel Mormon" thing has obvious flaws.

I didn't even start to look on the internet for things church releated until about 3 years ago anyway.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think in order to help the distinction become more apparent for the chapel Mormons, we Internet Mormons need to put a mark of red in our foreheads after the manner of the Internet folk.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think in order to help the distinction become more apparent for the chapel Mormons, we Internet Mormons need to put a mark of red in our foreheads after the manner of the Internet folk.

Do I have to wear it while I'm teaching my gospel doctrine lessons? I'm afraid people would talk behind my back.

[volgadon]

Thats ok, as they would be chapel mormons- the new unwashed masses.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think in order to help the distinction become more apparent for the chapel Mormons, we Internet Mormons need to put a mark of red in our foreheads after the manner of the Internet folk.

How about a large, scarlet "I" stitched to the clothing we wear to Church meetings? And we be banished from the chapel and required to sit in overflow classrooms with the proceedings piped in via PA system. Or better yet, required to remain at home and have the proceedings transmitted to us via -- what else? -- the Internet.