Chapel Mormons

[lingo]

And whats wrong with the "widowed women" theory? it is one of the reasons for plural marriage. You can't honestly read the discussions about concern for the widows after the manifesto was made without realizing it was one of the reasons, though I think Jacob 2:30 gives the main one. i would have thought youd read that, but then there are too many people who just dont study the scriptures as they should.

From what you seem to think is faith promoting and true, i wouldnt be surprised if you did cause reprecussions.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

That does not logically follow. Contrary to your assertion, unless they are mutually exclusive, any combination of or all of the explanations could be true and work in concert to strengthen its validity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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 don't think you even understand what is in that verse of scripture. Your arguement is quite revelaing ins this regard.

When many people speak on a subject and all have different explanations, the validity gets watered down.

Isn't this what happens with science and theories? I guess we should just through them all out.

[Scott Lloyd]

What's wrong with it is the fact that many within the church do not agree with it either.

People within the Church can be just as wrong as people outside of it.

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.

What it does do is establish internal consistency; the Church is acting in accordance with its canonical literature. And with Biblical precedent, I might add.

[consiglieri]

If some of these things "dented" you testimony, then how strong was your testimony in the first place?

This question seems to show a lack of empathy for the very real experiences of many in the Church, and many no longer in the Church.

Truth, in Mormonism as well as in virtually every other aspect of life, is a two-edged sword.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

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)

I think the Chapel/Internet mormon divide is capably illustrated by the difference in opinion over the location (and numbers) of the Hill Cumorah. Whether or not the BoM population stretched down to Chile seems to be less relevant. But a good point nonetheless.

[Bsix]

I think the Chapel/Internet mormon divide is capably illustrated by the difference in opinion over the location (and numbers) of the Hill Cumorah. Whether or not the BoM population stretched down to Chile seems to be less relevant. But a good point nonetheless.

It seems that the distinction between so-called 'Chapel Mormons' and so-called 'Internet Mormons' is a level of exposure to questions that almost nobody cares about except the critics of the Church.

Shade's theory has been pretty much debunked so completely that the catch-phrases have now evolved into a very abstract notions that nobody can exactly pin down. In other words, they are catch-phrases in search of a meaning.

Regards,

Six

[Daniel Peterson]

I think the Chapel/Internet mormon divide is capably illustrated by the difference in opinion over the location (and numbers) of the Hill Cumorah.

I can't agree with this.

First of all, there is the question of terminology: Proposals of a Mesoamerican Cumorah for the final battles have been around since long before the internet. David Palmer's In Search of Cumorah, for instance, which represents the most sustained case for a Mesoamerican Cumorah yet published, first appeared in 1981. It grew out of the then still-unpublished work of John Sorenson, which finally saw print as An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in 1985. The first Internet service provider (ISP) companies were formed during the late 1980s.

Then there's the problematic fact that many very "Chapel Mormons" (e.g., yours truly) lean strongly toward a Mesoamerican Cumorah. There could, for example, be no more chapelish "Chapel Mormon" than the late H. Verlan Andersen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Verlan_Andersen

He was a member of my Orem ward, and I was teaching Gospel Doctrine class one day when he was visiting back in Utah for general conference from his assignment in the Mexico area presidency. After the class, we spoke of many things. At one point, he mentioned that he had been "bouncing over the Hill Cumorah in a jeep a few days before." "What?," quoth I. "You know," he said. "Down by Veracruz."

The "Internet Mormon"/"Chapel Mormon" dichotomy is, and has always been, silly, simplistic, tendentious, and misleading. Whatever merits it may possess were already present, years before, in Richard Poll's much more grown-up and serious model of "Liahona Mormons" and "Iron Rod Mormons."

.

[cinepro]

The "Internet Mormon"/"Chapel Mormon" dichotomy is, and has always been, silly, simplistic, tendentious, and misleading. Whatever merits it may possess were already present, years before, in Richard Poll's much more grown-up and serious model of "Liahona Mormons" and "Iron Rod Mormons."

I can't speak for others, but I will say that I appreciate the Internet/Chapel Mormon labels not for their ability to tweak the sensibilities of Internet Mormons, but because I find them very useful labels (or shorthand) for two very different approaches to the Church's teachings.

To put it simply, I have to say different things to Chapel Mormons than I do to Internet Mormons. The nature and tone of conversations can be drastically different between the two, especially for someone like myself.

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.

On an additional note, I suspect the theory may also eventually point out that Internet Mormons characteristically deny that they're any different than Chapel Mormons, and protest any sort of distinction being made, while Chapel Mormons readily acknowledge the suspect thinking involved in theorizing dual Cumorahs, limited floods, and pre-Adamites (to the degree that they're aware of it) and don't mind the distinction.

[cinepro]

It seems that the distinction between so-called 'Chapel Mormons' and so-called 'Internet Mormons' is a level of exposure to questions that almost nobody cares about except the critics of the Church.

Six

That's because they're usually not "questions" to Chapel Mormons (see my sig).

[ttribe]

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.

That's your litmus test? Interesting...I must have been an "Internet Mormon" before the Internet became a common public commodity.

[wenglund]

I can surely say that I have never married or dated a woman!. . . but to the same extent, one husband is more than enough too!

Then, there really is no "injustice".

Maybe I never want to understand the godly sense of it, since I don't agree with the practise as it doesn't take into consideration of what I believe to be the neutral status of the soul. (neither male or female. . . or maybe better said both).

I am not sure how rational it is to disagree with something before you even understanding it. But, I suppose that is a womans perogative.

And, since this issue has been moot for more than 100 years, I suppose there is little or no harm in your uninformed disagreement--that is, as long as it doesn't mistakenly become a stumbling block to you becoming more like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have a puzzle for the Internet/Chapel false construction. There is an older gentleman in my ward. Shortly after the PBS documentary The Mormons he stood to bear his testimony on fast Sunday. He said he didn't like the documentary, and that some anti-Mormons were on the show saying Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat and so forth. You might recall one such "anti-Mormon" was Dan Peterson himself!

Anyway, a few weeks ago we had a Sunday School lesson that talked about Joseph Smith's martyrdom. The teacher noted that Joseph's last phrase was something of a prayer, "Oh Lord, my God..."

About 3 minutes later after the teacher had moved to the next point this same old gentleman raised his hand and said something like this:

"Actually, Joseph Smith was a mason, and those words were part of the distress call of the Masons, so it wasn't really a prayer." The teacher said maybe it was both.

But wait, this is the sort of thing we wouldn't expect based on the Chapel/Internet dichotomy.

[Daniel Peterson]

I can't speak for others, but I will say that I appreciate the Internet/Chapel Mormon labels not for their ability to tweak the sensibilities of Internet Mormons, but because I find them very useful labels (or shorthand) for two very different approaches to the Church's teachings.

As are "Liahona Mormon" and "Iron Rod Mormon," but without the ridiculous baggage of claiming them to be "two entirely distinct religions" and "two distinct churches," and without the anachronistic silliness of claiming that David Palmer, who died roughly two decades ago, was an "Internet Mormon" -- let alone of applying that title to still earlier proponents of two Cumorahs.

To put it simply, I have to say different things to Chapel Mormons than I do to Internet Mormons. The nature and tone of conversations can be drastically different between the two, especially for someone like myself.

Something quite adequately covered many years ago by Richard Poll's distinction.

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.

Even though both ideas were around long before the internet, and even though I learned of them myself long before the internet and without any influence from the internet? And you deny me the title of "Chapel Mormon" even though I'm a bishop? Even though I'll be spending approximately six hours at the chapel tonight (Wednesday night) alone?

Do you realize how perfectly ridiculous this bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand is? If I took it very seriously, I might even find it arrogantly offensive.

On an additional note, I suspect the theory may also eventually point out that Internet Mormons characteristically deny that they're any different than Chapel Mormons, and protest any sort of distinction being made, while Chapel Mormons readily acknowledge the suspect thinking involved in theorizing dual Cumorahs, limited floods, and pre-Adamites (to the degree that they're aware of it) and don't mind the distinction.

Present us with actual empirical data -- your "suspicions" alone won't suffice -- and then we can discuss the spin you seek to put on your survey results.

[consiglieri]

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

[Daniel Peterson]

But then you're back to Richard Poll's durable, respectable, and intellectually serious spectrum of "Liahona Mormons" and "Iron Rod Mormons."

It's not just the anachronistic terminology. It's the silly either/or, the mutually exclusive categories.

I have a puzzle for the Internet/Chapel false construction. There is an older gentleman in my ward. Shortly after the PBS documentary The Mormons he stood to bear his testimony on fast Sunday. He said he didn't like the documentary, and that some anti-Mormons were on the show saying Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat and so forth. You might recall one such "anti-Mormon" was Dan Peterson himself!

Anyway, a few weeks ago we had a Sunday School lesson that talked about Joseph Smith's martyrdom. The teacher noted that Joseph's last phrase was something of a prayer, "Oh Lord, my God..."

About 3 minutes later after the teacher had moved to the next point this same old gentleman raised his hand and said something like this:

"Actually, Joseph Smith was a mason, and those words were part of the distress call of the Masons, so it wasn't really a prayer." The teacher said maybe it was both.

But wait, this is the sort of thing we wouldn't expect based on the Chapel/Internet dichotomy.

Verlan Andersen believed in two Cumorahs.

Thus, he was an "Internet Mormon."

He also believed in a global flood.

Thus, he was a "Chapel Mormon."

But he was an "Internet Mormon."

But he was a "Chapel Mormon."

But he was an "Internet Mormon."

But he was a "Chapel Mormon."

But he was an "Internet Mormon."

But he was a "Chapel Mormon."

That's one of the problems with simplistic dichotomies like this one: They don't match reality.

And it gets even better when the inventor of this nonsense claims that "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons" belong to "two entirely distinct religions," "completely separate churches."

To which church did Verlan Andersen belong?

Incoherent nonsense.

[ttribe]

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?

No...it assumes a bright-line test that oversimplifies the situation.

[cinepro]

(Reply to DCP and LOAP) No one claims the attitudes and approaches of Internet Mormonism don't predate the invention of the internet. In fact, as noted in the codex...

Lest anyone be confused, I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism--at least in its embryonic form--has been around much longer than the Internet itself has. Again, the name "Internet Mormonism" merely calls attention to the place at which one is most likely to encounter this brand of Mormon thought. It also pays tribute to the fact that the Internet was the catalyst for the recent explosion of this particular brand of Mormonism.

(Links not allowed; quoted for reference purposes only)

I too have met conundrums to the theory. I am acquainted with one fellow, a Bishop as well, who is apparently well versed in apologetics and supports many apologetic theories, but also apparently rejects the LGT for the Book of Mormon. I honestly don't know where he would be classified (I haven't asked him about his views on Noah's flood).

While I also appreciate the Liahona/Iron Rod theory, I don't find it to address the same issues as the IM/CM theory. Poll's classification seems to more directly address the practices of the Church (i.e. why do some LDS drink Mountain Dew, while others won't?), while the Shades' classification seems to relate more strongly to the teachings of the Church. But it's been a while since I read Poll's article.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

How about we label them "dumb dupes" and "the enlightened consigleri's"? But even then, where does the old fellow in my ward fit in?

[Daniel Peterson]

(see my sig).

I just did.

Don Parry is a colleague of mine, and has been a friend for more than two decades.

He believes, apparently, in a global flood. Therefore, he's a "Chapel Mormon."

I know for a fact that he believes in a limited geographical model for the Book of Mormon, and in a Mesoamerican Cumorah. Therefore, he's an "Internet Mormon."

According to the inventor of that silly dichotomy, he belongs to two entirely distinct churches, and believes in two completely different religions.

This is silliness.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll throw a new ingredient into this pot.

How do we categorize old-timers who teach wacky folklore as though it were doctrine?

I'm told that some close relatives were disquieted, even depressed, recently by their home teacher who came with tales about a prophecy of the scriptures. that "we" (presumably members of the Church) would one day be required to escape into the mountains. Asked what we were to do with our stored food, the man opined that "the Church will probably help us with that."

I marveled how, under the above scenario, it would be possible for millions of Church members across the world to make their way to Utah's Wasatch Front, there to escape into the mountains adjacent to Salt Lake and Bountiful, hoping to have the Church help them bring their food storage along.

[LifeOnaPlate]

While I also appreciate the Liahona/Iron Rod theory, I don't find it to address the same issues as the IM/CM theory. Poll's classification seems to more directly address the practices of the Church (i.e. why do some LDS drink Mountain Dew, while others won't?), while the Shades' classification seems to relate more strongly to the teachings of the Church. But it's been a while since I read Poll's article.

In an update Poll clarified as follows:

1. In the metaphoric sense which I have proposed, the Iron-Rod/Liahona dichotomy has elements in common with, but not synonymous with, such classifications as dogmatism and empiricism, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, fundamentalism and modernism, or even conservatism and liberalism. However, the identification is far from complete. Iron Rod Saints have demonstrated remarkable flexibility in the matter of theology: they happily see blacks in the temple and stay home from church on Sunday evenings. Correspondingly, some Liahonas have defended evolution and the Equal Rights Amendment with fervent dogmatism. The labels of Liahona and Iron Rod identify responses to religious authoritarianism in the sphere of Latter-day Saint testimony, not predictable positions on given issues, certain attitudes, or any particular behavior patterns.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/history/chapter2.htm

But for me the dichotomy fails on grounds other than the obviously dumb labels.

[asbestosman]

There are internet apostates and then there are bar apostates--two distinct religions.

Internet apostates believe in two faces while bar apostates believe they'll have another drink.

Internet apostates belive they can destroy the church through the power of the internet. Bar apostates believe they can ignore the word of wisdom without destroying their livers.

Internet apostates believe that Mormons are afraid of the truth. Bar apostates are afraid of feeling guilty for their sins if they talk to faithful Mormons.

Internet apostates believe that the church secretly monitors everything and engages in smear campaigns. Bar apostates are afraid that God may be watching them and simply try not to think about that fact.

Internet apostates believe they left because they found logical proof that the church isn't true. Bar apostates left because they think sinning is easier than keeping the commandments.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are internet apostates and then there are bar apostates--two distinct religions.

Internet apostates believe in two faces while bar apostates believe they'll have another drink.

Internet apostates belive they can destroy the church through the power of the internet. Bar apostates believe they can ignore the word of wisdom without destroying their livers.

Internet apostates believe that Mormons are afraid of the truth. Bar apostates are afraid of feeling guilty for their sins if they talk to faithful Mormons.

Internet apostates believe that the church secretly monitors everything and engages in smear campaigns. Bar apostates are afraid that God may be watching them and simply try not to think about that fact.

Internet apostates believe they left because they found logical proof that the church isn't true. Bar apostates left because they think sinning is easier than keeping the commandments.

Brilliant! And thus, a new model is born.

[cinepro]

I just did.

Don Parry is a colleague of mine, and has been a friend for more than two decades.

He believes, apparently, in a global flood. Therefore, he's a "Chapel Mormon."

I know for a fact that he believes in a limited geographical model for the Book of Mormon, and in a Mesoamerican Cumorah. Therefore, he's an "Internet Mormon."

According to the inventor of that silly dichotomy, he belongs to two entirely distinct churches, and believes in two completely different religions.

This is silliness.

The way I see it, if he believes in a global flood (an issue for which the science is much, much clearer), he is a Chapel Mormon. The clarity of the science and the theology of the global flood (and their total contradiction) trumps everything else as in indicator.

Believes global flood = Chapel Mormon (with bonus points if they express shock when told there are other alternatives being seriously considered).

Local flood, allegorical, or "I don't know" = Internet Mormon

But that's just me.