Chapel Mormons

[ttribe]

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.

So flood wins out over mesoamerican theories on the location of the BoM...got it...all these rules for this "simple" dichotomy.

And yeah...that is just you.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So for cinepro this concept hinges on a Biblical story that comes up in Sunday School apx. once in 4 years.

[wenglund]

Where things become all the more problematic with the banal dichotomy, is in classifying people, like myself, who are genuinely undecided on, and even somewhat indifferent to, several of the key issues quieried in Shade's survey.

What is to be made of those of us who don't exactly fit either stereotype?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Redefined]

Then, there really is no "injustice".

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-

I guess you would have to understand polygamy as an earthly perversion to see the injustice of it.

The practise of polygamy isn't something I oppose between consenting adults, it's the double standard. . . If in Heaven men can choose to have more then one wife, women should be able to choose to have more then one husband.

[Pahoran]

Good Morning Everyone,

Now in address to the comments posted.

First of all the fighting injustice comment was in response to Jeff K.'s thought of "You ex Mormons and your polygamy, you love it, you caress it, you fan its flames, it means a great deal more to you than it does to Mormons.". I think if you go back to post #102 and read my comment to his post in that context, you can determine that it would be in direct response to his last sentence here. So he was saying I discuss polygamy because I love it so much (as seen above). I was correcting this because it isn't polygamy I love (I'll excuse the blatant sarcasm). . . it is fighting injustice. . . and polygamy in the Mormon theological sense is an injustice. . . come tell me when women can be eternally sealed to more than one man the same as a man could be to women, and I'll reconsider my opinion.

Thanks for that clarification. I rather suspected it was so. "Injustice" to you means, "someone else once had something I can't have," and "fighting injustice" means, "I wannit NAAAOW!"

Got it.

There are a whole lot of real injustices in the world. You probably wouldn't notice them, because the real victims are usually not free, well-fed North American women.

Lets see. . . .

Secondly, I feel like so many of you are willing to bat me over the head with a grammical error as if no one in the world or in this forum at least ever has done such. If clarification is sought then please ask, and I will clarify, there is no need to sink to a insulting level. If I remember right, MolaRSR did ask me to clarify. . . which if it weren't for me addressing all the other comments being directed my way at the time, I woud have clarified this last night. Post #80 I'm being asked to clarify here. . . which was in response to Dr.JD saying "Sorry, I have never seen one iota of evidece to suggest that brigham young ordered the MMM. His ordering the MMM defies the laws of time and space." . . . Which I replied to point out that if there was conclusive evidence, Brigham Young would be in the history book titled "Early Executed Prisoners in Utah".

I'm sorry you felt insulted by my asking for this clarification. But thank you for providing it all the same.

There are sources that implicate that he had ordered the massacre. . . as I referenced in post #71. . . "Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could."^[10] Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.^{[11]http://en.wikipedia....eadows_massacre.}

This was just an example I used to show that there are sources that imply that Brigham Young might be involved. . .

That canard has largely been laid to rest. It is persisted in only by some of the more stubborn antagonists.

it wasn't my attempt to say, this source PROVES he ordered the massacre.

Which is probably just as well, really.

The whole discussion of the massacre started with I believe it was Deborah that saying that MMM had nothing to do with the church on the larger scale.

Which is plainly true.

Well, this is arguable, Brigham Youngs actions after the fact give as much reason for critics to believe he was in the least indirectly involved, as the church has reason to believe that he had nothing to do with it.

That's not true.

Brigham's actions after the fact are fully and parsimoniously explained with reference to the actual circumstances he was in, and without reference to any ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I just thought you'd like to know.

Regards,

Pahoran

With all of that said, I better copy the post in case I have a submission error!

[Redefined]

Pahoran,

I am aware that the world is much bigger than myself. I find it very rude to imply that just because I have issue about this particular injustice, that I am somehow not aware of the so many atrocious injustices that people all over the world suffer.

Addressing anything else in your comment, would just be circular, as I have discussed it here already.

Sincerely,

Amy

[cinepro]

So flood wins out over mesoamerican theories on the location of the BoM...got it...all these rules for this "simple" dichotomy.

So for cinepro this concept hinges on a Biblical story that comes up in Sunday School apx. once in 4 years.

More important than its frequency in Sunday School is its clarity in the Church's publications (and lack of dissenting options in said publications) compared with the clarity of the science contradicting it.

As far as I can tell, there is no other doctrine that is so clear, and yet so clearly contradicted by Earth sciences. That's why it's so useful (and so much more useful than the theories surrounding BoM geography).

[wenglund]

I guess you would have to understand polygamy as an earthly perversion to see the injustice of it.

The practise of polygamy isn't something I oppose between consenting adults, it's the double standard. . . If in Heaven men can choose to have more then one wife, women should be able to choose to have more then one husband.

Your "ought" would make sense if the divine objective behind the standard is equal treatment.

But, it's not.

Rather, it is to be fruitful and multiply and to enable God's children to become like him--which necessitates tailoring the family structure in ways best suited to the respectives sexes achieving the divine objective.

Ironicaly, it is the notion of "equal treatment" that is an "earthly perversions".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Redefined]

Your "ought" would make sense if the divine objective behind the standard is equal treatment.

But, it's not.

Rather, it is to be fruitful and multiply and to enable God's children to become like him--which necessitates tailoring the family structure in ways best suited to the respectives sexes achieving the divine objective.

Ironicaly, it is the notion of "equal treatment" that is an "earthly perversions".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't view equal treatment as perverse. In fact It is one of my own philosophical views.

I understand what you are saying. I can see how Mormon understanding would allow for polygamy under such conditions.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't view equal treatment as perverse. In fact It is one of my own philosophical views.

What do you mean that "equal treatment" is one of your "philosophical views"?

[wenglund]

I don't view equal treatment as perverse. In fact It is one of my own philosophical views.

That's understandable. Perversion is a judgement that is relative to the standard being applied. If you use your own philosophy as the standard, then obviousluy none of your philosophical views would be deemed perverse.

However, if the wisdom and understanding of the divine is used as the standard, then your earthly philosophies may very well be deemed perverse.

It is all about where you put your trust. To each their own.

By the way, I think there is a point at which even you would agree that "equal treatment" is not always the best standard to go by. Surely you wouldn't advise that criminals receive "equal treatment" to law-abiding citizens. In terms of surviving and thriving, nature, itself, distributes unequally to the fittest, and often justly so. As the saying goes; "as ye sow, so shall ye reap."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

So when one is part "Chapel" and part "Internet" Mormon, do we call them "Foyer Mormons" or "Cultural Hall Mormons?"

[Yamaha]

Just don't see the divide mentioned. I see uninformed Mormons and Mormons well informed on some things and not others, and even some informed Mormons on most things. No one has quite yet achieved omnipotence though.

uninformed Mormons = chapel Mormons

informed Mormons - internet Mormons

Perhaps the "informed" Mormons are informed partly by the internet. It is the information age.

[asbestosman]

Imagine for a second that someone claims that humans can be divided into two distinct groups. Let's call them group X and group Y. Group X humans have the distinguishing characteristic that they are born a uterus. Group Y humans have the distinguishing characteristic that they are born with prostate glands. X has two X chromosones while Y has an X and a Y. And we go on to list the biological differences between male and female.

Say an individual has some characteristics of each. Does the existence of such an individual disprove that male and female are two separate, distinct classifications of humans? If not, why does the existance of individuals who display characteristics of both Chapel and Internet Mormons disprove the distinction?

(I will leave the answer as an exercise to the reader, but I do not believe that these two classifications are sufficiently analogous).

[Yamaha]

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.

My guess would be that after this old gentleman watched the PBS program, he hopped on the internet and did a little research. By the time he knew about masonry and the masonic call of distress, he'd received quite an education, thereby transitioning from chapel Mormon to Internet Mormon.

By the way, I had the same experience in my ward. The fast Sunday after the PBS program the 2nd counselor in my bishopbric bore his testimony that everything in the PBS program was all anti-Mormon lies. and this is a well-educated man.

[LifeOnaPlate]

My guess would be that after this old gentleman watched the PBS program, he hopped on the internet and did a little research. By the time he knew about masonry and the masonic call of distress, he'd received quite an education, thereby transitioning from chapel Mormon to Internet Mormon.

He doesn't use the Internet. There goes that theory.

[Yamaha]

He doesn't use the Internet. There goes that theory.

Are you sure? Perhaps he read some books.

Intenet Mormon = informed Mormon (could have learned it from books)

[LifeOnaPlate]

(I will leave the answer as an exercise to the reader, but I do not believe that these two classifications are sufficiently analogous).

This would apply more if you claimed hermaphrodites were not only a majority, but that they are also unaware of the males and females. And other adjustments.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Are you sure? Perhaps he read some books.

Reading books is a necessary trait for Internet Mormons?

[Jeff K.]

uninformed Mormons = chapel Mormons

informed Mormons - internet Mormons

Perhaps the "informed" Mormons are informed partly by the internet. It is the information age.

Wrong, you overlook the basics.

Just don't see the divide mentioned. I see uninformed Mormons and Mormons well informed on some things and not others, and even some informed Mormons on most things. No one has quite yet achieved omnipotence though.

In other words the dichotomy does not work and is therefore false. One would consider me in my attitude to be something of a chapel Mormon and yet I am much more informed than many, certainly more informeed than quite a few here. The dichotomy is false.

[juliann]

I guess you would have to understand polygamy as an earthly perversion to see the injustice of it.

The practise of polygamy isn't something I oppose between consenting adults, it's the double standard. . . If in Heaven men can choose to have more then one wife, women should be able to choose to have more then one husband.

Oh my, can you get any more self-important? You first have to make up an injustice, then you have to pretend that injustice actually exists...in heaven....and then you can sit in your comfy chair in your nice home and pretend you are fighting for justice. Meanwhile real people are dying from injustices you could actually do somethilng about.

Oh, by the way....all women are eventually sealed to all of their husbands if those names are submitted.

[Redefined]

That's understandable. Perversion is a judgement that is relative to the standard being applied. If you use your own philosophy as the standard, then obviousluy none of your philosophical views would be deemed perverse.

However, if the wisdom and understanding of the divine is used as the standard, then your earthly philosophies may very well be deemed perverse.

It is all about where you put your trust. To each their own.

By the way, I think there is a point at which even you would agree that "equal treatment" is not always the best standard to go by. Surely you wouldn't advise that criminals receive "equal treatment" to law-abiding citizens. In terms of surviving and thriving, nature, itself, distributes unequally to the fittest, and often justly so. As the saying goes; "as ye sow, so shall ye reap."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I would agree that criminals shouldn't be given 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*

[Hamba Tuhan]

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, and, as we all know, 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' for very much longer. Nevertheless, the problem for the critics who've pulled up their lawn chairs and six packs and settled in to watch the Church's imminent demise is that no amount of variety in the Church is sufficient to overcome what actually binds us all together.

My ward is rather diverse educationally, socio-economically, culturally, and linguistically, and the members inevitably demonstrate similarly diverse degrees of familiarity with so-called problems in Church history, doctrine, and practice. For example, the father of two of my Young Men speaks only a few words of the language we use at church, understands even less, and works as a cleaner at an open-air market to support his family. I suspect he would be a classic 'chapel Mormon' who's never even thought about most of what gets discussed on this board. I, on the other hand, have the ability to read well six different languages (plus their historical variants), have some facility in a few other languages, am finishing up a PhD in history, and, when I've found time in the past to teach, got paid nearly US$100/hour by the university for my work. I feel I have reasonable familiarity with nearly all of the issues which get discussed on this board, and I'm rather certain that I'd be identified as an 'internet Mormon' by most surveys.

Despite these differences, however, if one were to attend our testimony meeting this Sunday and listen to this brother and me share what we have experienced and therefore know to be true, there would be no differences whatsoever in what we express. His witness and mine, as we've discovered in the past, are exactly the same. I don't feel sorry for or look down upon him. He doesn't worry about or distrust me. I don't in any way consider him 'uninformed,' and, to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't see me as wrongly informed. We are brothers in Christ, united in one faith and one cause...as much as I suspect this must disappoint those who have a need for the Church to be falling apart along some perceived divide.

[Redefined]

". . . the critics who've pulled up their lawn chairs and six packs and settled in to watch the Church's imminent demise. . . "-Hamba Tuhan

LOL! Just the way you said it made me laugh.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

To which I reply:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, chapter 6, "Humpty Dumpty")