Chapel Mormons

[wenglund]

Would it then be logical to assume that if a church member was spreading false information, and the church was aware, it would be the responsiblity of the church to correct said information.

I don't view it so much as the Church's responsibility as I see as a beneficial endevour when practical, pertinent, and when the disinformation has the potential of doing substantial harm.

I defended the polygamy doctrine several times to investigators/friends in the presence of missionaries, high priests, a bishop, and a high councelor using the "widowed women" theory. Not once was I ever corrected. Somebody surely had more knowledge of truth than I did!

So?

Later on towards my apostacy, if you will, I corrected a faith promoting story with facts in GD class. Reprecussions were a result.

So?

Sounds to me like you were more concerned with being factually right on things that really didn't matter, than you were about growing in faith unto salvation--things that really do matter. Is it any wonder, then, that your admitted apostacy would be the resulting reprecussion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Well, I'm not the one who's hung up over it.

Nor am I.

Get back to me when you have something more than contrived mockery to offer.

No need to get sore!

Until then, I have more important concerns.

By all means, move on!

[wenglund]

Eeh, Wade's right, why waste my time with such a hobby-horse. After all, the "turning of the hearts" is just to get the work done.

Dear Edmond,

Here's a medal. Now please go back in the closet and don't bug us with you history anymore. It makes us uncomfortable. We just don't have much need of your stories and others like you. Can't seem to find a significant gospel lesson to pull from ya.

Take care,

Your loving grrr. grandson.

Ohhhh....the draaaammmaaa. If ever there were a victim, it is father Edmond not having his polygamous trivails trumpeted during every Sunday School class or during every Sacrament meeting.

If only you could have attached the plaintiff sounds of violines and pianos in the background. That would have made your little Greek tragedy complete.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Ohhhh....the draaaammmaaa. If ever there were a victim, it is father Edmond not having his polygamous trivails trumpeted during every Sunday School class or during every Sacrament meeting.

If only you could have attached the plaintiff sounds of violines and pianos in the background. That would have made your little Greek tragedy complete.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're a classless, disrespectful ***! But I think you already know that.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're a classless, disrespectful ***! But I think you already know that.

Isn't that what Balaam said in Numbers 22:29? Or am I reading the apocryphal version?

[Scott Lloyd]

Nor am I [hung up over it].

You have a rather convincing way of faking it, then.

No need to get sore!

By all means, move on!

I'm not sore. Just saying your fanciful conversation with your fourth- or fifth- generation ancestor who, for all you know, comprehends the Church doctrine and stance regarding plural marriage and is fine with it, is not very persuasive as an argument.

[Pahoran]

That is probably why you don't see Brigham Young in the history books as early prisoner executions of Utah.

Redefined,

it might be easier to follow your arguments if you took the trouble to actually write coherent sentences. I know you can if you want to; but I have no idea what, if anything, the above actually means.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Redefined,

it might be easier to follow your arguments if you took the trouble to actually write coherent sentences. I know you can if you want to; but I have no idea what, if anything, the above actually means.

Regards,

Pahoran

Indeed. I've been trying off and on for half a day to decipher that. No luck yet.

[Senator]

I'm not sore. Just saying your fanciful conversation with your fourth- or fifth- generation ancestor who, for all you know, comprehends the Church doctrine and stance regarding plural marriage and is fine with it, is not very persuasive as an argument.

I thought you had more important concerns. (than mind reading the dead)

[lingo]

I don't view it so much as the Church's responsibility as I see as a beneficial endevour when practical, pertinent, and when the disinformation has the potential of doing substantial harm.

So?

So?

Sounds to me like you were more concerned with being factually right on things that really didn't matter, than you were about growing in faith unto salvation--things that really do matter. Is it any wonder, then, that your admitted apostacy would be the resulting reprecussion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You sound as if being factually right, when the facts are present and available, is not that important to you. If it's faith promoting and sounds good, damned be the facts. Sound like a great mantra for a used car salesman, but not when someone is seeking eternal salvation and would like truthful answers while on their journey.

My apostacy was just from the LDS church, not from Christ or seeking for my own salvation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You sound as if being factually right, when the facts are present and available, is not that important to you. If it's faith promoting and sounds good, damned be the facts.

How on earth did you get that from Wade's post? I don't think this is an accurate represnetation of what Wade was saying.

[Jeff K.]

Scott Lloyd, on 27 October 2009 - 04:00 PM, said:

I also recognize that it never was intended to be a permanent condition in the Church.

Spoken like a true post- Manifestite.

Did they know that?

Post manifestite? That has got to be the silliest term to date.

Which manifesto do you want to focus on? I realize that you aren't that well grounded in testimony, but come on

The serious question might be this......

Was the Mosaic Law always supposed to be in existence? Did those living it know it? Of course not, you hold to the Lords commandments when commanded to do so, until released.

[Jeff K.]

Whenever, I hear members fielding the need to put the early saints' practice of plural marriage in its proper second class place, I always have a scene come into my mind. I'm standing outside a prison cell, in the blistering July heat of Yuma Arizon, inside of which is my 3rd Grt. polygamous Grandfather. I say to him, "Edmond, take heart, this is only a secondary dogma for which you are suffering."

Get over it. It isn't fundamental to the Lords church in the least.

[wenglund]

You're a classless, disrespectful ***! But I think you already know that.

I suppose your use of the screen-name "Senator" should have alerted me to the potential hyper-sensativity, if not prodigious size, of your ego, and also the disinclination to take what you so freely dish out.

But, like you said earlier, there is no reason to get sore. Your vile exploitation of your grrr grandfather (who I would never think to disrespect), in a lame attempt at emotional manipulation, clearly backfired. Feel free to move on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Post manifestite? That has got to be the silliest term to date.

[Deleted....Stupid post]

You are going to take a break from the board.

[notHagoth7]

Can we please move beyond the personal attacks...?

[Wiki Wonka]

Also, witness the success (to whatever degree) of Rodney Meldrum and the FIRM Foundation. Say what you will, but to follow his program takes some degree of time and effort, and someone who follows his line of thinking would most certainly be identified as a Chapel Mormon.

Odd, considering that Meldrum supporters believe in a limited BoM geography, and most of what you would call "Chapel Mormons" would believe in a hemispheric one. Remember this question from Shades' little quiz?

"Did the Nephites make their last stand against the Lamanites on a hill in Central America or on a hill in New York?"

BTW, I'm not even sure how Meldrum's theory fits into that question...it sort of nullifies the question as both choices become limited geography. Perhaps it needs to be updated?

(See the entire Chapel vs. Internet Mormon quiz here: Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons)

Internet Mormons ignorantly assume that Chapel Mormons would be just like them if only they knew. The sad truth is that many Chapel Mormons know about Internet Mormons, and feel sorry for them. And those that don't know about them may express pity or shock when exposed to Internet Mormon theories.

Now this I simply don't believe. Maybe its true wherever you live. My entire High Priest group regularly discusses things in the what would be referred to as the "Internet Mormon" realm - that's one reason I'm asked to teach so much, and yet all of these folks would be considered "Chapel Mormons." They just love learning about this stuff.

[Jeff K.]

Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons, another myth perpetuated by the wannabe intellectual crowd. The High Priests Quorum in my ward is quite probably some of the most well informed not only in church history, but doctrine and its implications. They are what some on this board would call the stalwarts who they would deem as "unknowing". Many have the journals of their polygamist forevbears and have a unique insight with journals from their grandmothers and grandfathers.

I would say their depth of knowledge exceeds most here in terms of primary source information, and yet their entire lives they have lived faithfully and without near the rancor of some who make these specious claims of "if they only knew"....

Come down to OC sometime, you would be surprised.

[wenglund]

You sound as if being factually right, when the facts are present and available, is not that important to you. If it's faith promoting and sounds good, damned be the facts. Sound like a great mantra for a used car salesman, but not when someone is seeking eternal salvation and would like truthful answers while on their journey.

Mola is correct. That wasn't anywhere close to what I suggested--which I find interesting given how important it is to you to get things right.

To more accurately understand my point, it would help were you to step outside your black/white way of thinking and consider things in terms of priorities. It is about directing your concerns towards the things that matter most and the things of most significance and the things that will best enable you to become your very best self, like unto Christ.

My apostacy was just from the LDS church, not from Christ or seeking for my own salvation.

Yet, you don't seem to have moved past your LDS experience, but still feel the need to fuss about it online.

I do, though, wish you well in your new faith journey. Hopefully there wont be any polygamy stumbling blocks to get in your way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons, another myth perpetuated by the wannabe intellectual crowd. The High Priests Quorum in my ward is quite probably some of the most well informed not only in church history, but doctrine and its implications. They are what some on this board would call the stalwarts who they would deem as "unknowing". Many have the journals of their polygamist forevbears and have a unique insight with journals from their grandmothers and grandfathers.

I would say their depth of knowledge exceeds most here in terms of primary source information, and yet their entire lives they have lived faithfully and without near the rancor of some who make these specious claims of "if they only knew"....

Come down to OC sometime, you would be surprised.

Sounds a lot like my HP group. I am in California.

Pardon my ignorance, but where is "OC?"

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought you had more important concerns. (than mind reading the dead)

I'm not mind reading the dead. I'm saying you have no more ability in that respect than do I, and that the attempted manipulative exploitation of the memory of a dead ancestor has fallen rather flat, so you should give it a rest. It certainly is no substitute for cogent argumentation.

[Jeff K.]

Orange County, South of Los Angeles, North of San Diego. Mission Viejo

[Daniel Peterson]

Keep in mind that the MMM was 1857, and the book and article appeared in 2007.

So, granting that the Church is now being "open" about the MMM, I will suggest it serves as a good model for ways in which the Church can deal with other areas of its history.

I think there's no question that we're handling historical matters better now than we once did.

We've gone from being a small, regionally confined, largely rural group to being a relatively large, comparatively cosmopolitan, much more urban and suburban movement; we have many more trained academic historians than we once did; and they now have something of an audience, much better educated and more sophisticated than it once was.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows, Rough Stone Rolling, and the Joseph Smith Papers project -- none of these comes out of nowhere, utterly de novo, but each of them represents greater maturity.

I'm very happy about it all.

Although it would have been especially interesting to see a lesson in this year's Sunday School curriculum that incorporated the MMM, and discussed the factors that can lead to such a tragedy (if there are any gospel corollaries that could be extracted).

I don't know that I would see such a thing as desirable for Gospel Doctrine class, but I will say that, both of the times I read Massacre at Mountain Meadows, I sensed the germ of a potentially great play, a religious tragedy, that would explore the roots of the massacre. I'm not a dramatist or a playwright, so I'm not the one who's ever going to write it, but I hope that a believing Latter-day Saint will, someday. And perhaps I, or somebody like me, can translate similar thoughts into an essay or a seminar presentation or even a sermon (of some kind). I'm still mulling it over. I found the book quite moving, on multiple levels.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is a common misconception that the only difference between a Chapel Mormon and an Internet Mormon is the degree to which they study and think. Meaning, that all Chapel Mormons would be Internet Mormons if they just did a little more studying and thinking.

This is not the case.

A general example would be all the "Chapel Mormons" who have libraries full of Church books (which they read and study). I've known many, many people like this (and am related to a few). They study the scriptures and words of the prophets more than anyone I know. Yet, they reject many if not all of the foundational theories of Internet Mormonism (LGT and two Cumorahs for BoM, limited flood for Noah, pre-Adamites and evolutionary creation, etc.)

And specifically, it should be pointed out that the gold standards for Chapel Mormons are Elder McConkie and President Joseph Fielding Smith and President Benson. These men were many things, but no one will say they were lacking in knowledge about the gospel or Church history.

Also, witness the success (to whatever degree) of Rodney Meldrum and the FIRM Foundation. Say what you will, but to follow his program takes some degree of time and effort, and someone who follows his line of thinking would most certainly be identified as a Chapel Mormon.

No, the fundamental difference between Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons isn't the amount of time and effort they spend studying the gospel or Church history. It's the basic approach they take regarding the words of the scriptures, prophets, and Church leaders in comparison with the words of scholars, scientists and other more conventional purveyors of knowledge.

Internet Mormons ignorantly assume that Chapel Mormons would be just like them if only they knew. The sad truth is that many Chapel Mormons know about Internet Mormons, and feel sorry for them. And those that don't know about them may express pity or shock when exposed to Internet Mormon theories.

That there are differing approaches to being faithfully Mormon is so obvious as to scarcely merit mention. Every bishop and every home teacher knows it. It's certainly not a breathtaking discovery.

And if you want to organize these into essentially two contrasting "styles," Richard Poll's venerable old distinction between "Liahona Mormons" and "Iron Rod" Mormons did the job quite adequately, even perceptively.

It's not clear, in that light, why the author of the "Chapel Mormon" versus "Internet Mormon" notion thought there was a need for his dichotomy -- which, anyway, is badly misnamed, since many supposed "Internet Mormons" are (I speak from personal knowledge) deeply committed to the "chapel," and most of the basic outlines of what is called "internet Mormonism" (e.g., limited geographical models for the Book of Mormon) long predate the internet (or even personal computers).

Morever, while Dr. Poll's categorization was fairly modest and restrained, the inventor of the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy pushed it much, much too far, posting fatuous nonsense about these being "two separate religions," "entirely different churches," and such silliness. Whatever modest value his not-clearly-needed scheme might have had was lost, largely if not entirely, by such cartoonish exaggeration. As the saying goes, there isn't much that's original in the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" concept, but what little there is isn't true.

[mysteryman]

No one leaves the Church because they were "uninformed". That's just a convenient excuse.

Oh no, here we go again with the mind reading abilities of your tarot cards. You are in no position to say "no one" leaves the church over being uninformed and only use it as a convenient excuse. You don't know that regardless of what your cards say. There are many that do begin their apostasy when they find out things they did not previously know. Many feel the church has lied to them. This is how they feel, and this is why they left the church, they are the ultimate authorities on why they left, not you and your magic cards. Now, you can argue and make a case that they were uninformed due to their own lack of interest in studying and you can argue that the church does not lie to people. I have known people that became troubled over certain issues and left the church having felt uninformed when in fact their were Ensign articles, statements in church manuals, or books sold at Deseret Book that discuss the issues they felt lied to about; they were in fact wrong that the church was hiding these things, but they did not know it at the time. But you are in no position to tell someone why they left the church, it is like me saying "No one ever joins the Mormon church because they had a spiritual confirmation of its truthfulness, that's just a convenient excuse." I have just as much logical and rational reasoning to make that absurd statement as you have to make yours.