Who Knows What Eeevil Lurks in the Heart of FARMS

[sethpayne]

Incidentally, an insistence that there has to be only one Cumorah falls under the category of what I would call folk doctrine, since the Church itself takes no official position on specific Book of Mormon locales. Is your definition of "chapel Mormon" one who holds fast to non-authoritative folk doctrine?

Hi Scott,

I think this makes you a "Mother's Lounge" Mormon.

Seth

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

I think this makes you a "Mother's Lounge" Mormon.

Seth

I'll take it!

[wenglund]

I know a number of chapel Mormons that have looked at Meldrum's stuff. Every one of them comes away from his presentation believing that the DNA evidence only supports his theory. There is no other way to explain the DNA evidence.

This may be why this causes so much concern to FAIR. If lots of chapel Mormons think Meldrum's stuff is the only answer and then they find out how flawed it is, then they will fall away.

As a Shade's-assessed "Chapel Mormon", I didn't come away with that belief. And, I suspect that Dr. Peterson, who also rated as a "Chapel Mormon", wasn't made a Meldrum believer either. How can that be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[DanGB]

Fascinating, I suppose.

Here n Texas LDS communities I can't say there is anyone I know who has ever mentioned this Meldrum guy, Farms, or this book being bantered. Inhave never been in a Deseret Bookstore nor know if one even exists in Texas or outside Utah.

So Im bettin this thread/topic is isolated to the interests of a rather few in the LDS corridor? Am I missing something?

[wenglund]

At the very least, this book shows what FARMS should have done. In addition to their books by Nibley and Sorenson (imposing with their language and size), perhaps they should have been publishing books that could appeal to wider audience of younger LDS, and LDS who don't want to feel like they're sitting in a college class while they're reading.

Heck, the first chapter is an extended argument against Sorenson's methodology; he's not extending any olive branches to the FARMS crowd with this book!

Hmmm...a book on "LDS Apologetics for Dummies". Intriguing idea. Sounds more like a FAIR project, though, than FARMS. Different approaches for different genre.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Hmmm...a book on "LDS Apologetics for Dummies". Intriguing idea. Sounds more like a FAIR project, though, than FARMS. Different approaches for different genre.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Written for the average CARMite?

[T-Bone]

Who on earth wants to go over there?

Well, apparently anybody who complains about what people on the "other" board(s) have to say.

[Palador]

Hmmm...a book on "LDS Apologetics for Dummies". Intriguing idea. Sounds more like a FAIR project, though, than FARMS. Different approaches for different genre.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Definitely agree with that. Sometimes, when FAIR presents something, it presents it a bit too academically, and it goes over the head of some people, especially those who may not have much experience in apologetics or academia. Not saying that it needs to be "dumbed down" or anything, but sometimes, I think a little simplification is in order. (I hope someone like Scott or Dan doesn't smite me with a +12 hammer of smiting for saying that...)

I've actually considered writing a book on apologetics for the youth. Address some of the tactics that those opposed to the church use, some ways of countering that, and more importantly, how to grow their own testimonies.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know a number of chapel Mormons that have looked at Meldrum's stuff. Every one of them comes away from his presentation believing that the DNA evidence only supports his theory.

But it doesn't.

There is no other way to explain the DNA evidence.

I spent this morning visiting with Drs. Scott Woodward and Ugo Perego, of the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation in Salt Lake City. I can assure you that these two geneticists disagree with the sentiment expressed in the sentence just above.

But what would they know?

This may be why this causes so much concern to FAIR. If lots of chapel Mormons think Meldrum's stuff is the only answer and then they find out how flawed it is, then they will fall away.

I agree that this is a reason for some concern.

BTW, what are your feelings about Noah's flood covering the whole planet, and there only being one "Hill Cumorah"? (You too, Scott Lloyd..) If the answers are "It was global, and there was only one", then you do indeed think like a Chapel Mormon. If your answers are anything else, then the line of thought that takes you to those answers is the definition of an Internet Mormon.

I've always found this sort of thinking perfectly astounding. Two Latter-day Saints may well agree on such trivial issues as the existence of God, the reality of the gold plates, the nature of the Godhead, the atonement of Christ, the conferral of keys by celestial beings in the Kirtland Temple, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the visit of Moroni, the necessity of modern prophets and apostles, the resurrection of Jesus, the necessity of baptism, the obligation of missionary work, the need for temple ordinances, the doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the transfiguration and succession of Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, the foundational significance of agency, the prophethood of Thomas S. Monson, the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist, the historical authenticity of the Book of Abraham, observance of the Word of Wisdom, the premortal existence of the human spirit, the inspired character of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood under the hands of Peter and James and John, acceptance of priesthood calls, the universal resurrection of all humankind, the need for vicarious work on behalf of the dead, the divine potential of human beings, the existence of a Mother in Heaven, the central importance of a premortal council in heaven, and hundreds more such things, but if one of them believes that the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites may have occurred in Mesoamerica rather than in New York, they belong to "two entirely separate churches, two utterly distinct faiths."

This is unspeakably silly.

On what possible basis, other than the sheer ideological-agenda-driven desire to force a wedge between believing Latter-day Saints, were the precise character of Noah's flood and the exact GPS co

[J Green]

I've always found this sort of thinking perfectly astounding. Two Latter-day Saints may well agree on such trivial issues as the existence of God, the reality of the gold plates, the nature of the Godhead, the atonement of Christ, the conferral of keys by celestial beings in the Kirtland Temple, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the visit of Moroni, the necessity of modern prophets and apostles, the resurrection of Jesus, the necessity of baptism, the obligation of missionary work, the need for temple ordinances, the doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the transfiguration and succession of Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, the foundational significance of agency, the prophethood of Thomas S. Monson, the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist, the historical authenticity of the Book of Abraham, observance of the Word of Wisdom, the premortal existence of the human spirit, the inspired character of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood under the hands of Peter and James and John, acceptance of priesthood calls, the universal resurrection of all humankind, the need for vicarious work on behalf of the dead, the divine potential of human beings, the existence of a Mother in Heaven, the central importance of a premortal council in heaven, and hundreds more such things, but if one of them believes that the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites may have occurred in Mesoamerica rather than in New York, they belong to "two entirely separate churches, two utterly distinct faiths."

This is unspeakably silly.

On what possible basis, other than the sheer ideological-agenda-driven desire to force a wedge between believing Latter-day Saints, were the precise character of Noah's flood and the exact GPS co

[Daniel Peterson]

I think you've nailed it.

[Vance]

What you have to remember, Dan, is that Cinepro and his ilk are operating on the Inverse Proportionality rule of LDS Doctrine, which posits that references in the standard works to redemption, the role of the Savior's atonement, service to our fellow man, and everything else you listed are simply too ubiquitous to represent anything important.

. . .

I have had a hard time understanding where Cinepro is coming from. This analysis may help me in doing so.

Thanks.

[Pahoran]

I tried to reply to this yesterday, but my post got lost. Oh well.

If your posts have been an honest representation of your understanding of the Chapel/Internet Mormon theory, then I don't blame you for seeing it as "trope".

FWIW, a "trope" is a metaphor or figure of speech. Which means I'm being kind by calling it a trope. I could quite legitimately describe it as a "rhetorical trick." Which it is.

It certainly does not rise to the level of a "theory."

The sole purpose of these labels is to protect and privilege various straw man arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ, and make the manipulator of them a kind of self-appointed guardian of "real" Mormon orthodoxy. This is entirely in the service of the anti-Mormon rule so shrewdly articulated by the late great Hugh W. Nibley: "Attack not the thing, but the image!" So an anti-Mormon starts deriding some bit of folklore, or non-canonical teaching, or at an extreme, a completely made up bit of nonsense (ankle hair as pubic hair, for example) and as soon as anyone dares to point out that the Church does not teach any such thing, the anti-Mormon smugly responds, "Ah, but you're an Internet Mormon. I'm talking about what Chapel Mormons believe." And thus the bemused apologist is put in his place, and the attacker is free to distort and misrepresent at will.

I am not making this up. Please note that I was there at the [still]birth of this silly notion. Long before Shades came up with his pretentious "survey," to try to give this meme a specious appearance of respectability, he was already flinging his "Chapel/Internet" labels around. And he was using them exactly and only as I have described above, for dishonest polemical purposes.

BTW, what are your feelings about Noah's flood covering the whole planet, and there only being one "Hill Cumorah"? (You too, Scott Lloyd..) If the answers are "It was global, and there was only one", then you do indeed think like a Chapel Mormon. If your answers are anything else, then the line of thought that takes you to those answers is the definition of an Internet Mormon.

Ah, so that's what the famous "survey" has ultimately been whittled down to: two rules to ring them all.

Of course there are many opinions on many subjects among the Latter-day Saints, contrary to those worthless bigots who like to characterise us as mind-numbed morgbots. But the idea that such a plethora of opinions can possibly be boiled down to a binary solution set is too simplistic for words.

No-one with any credibility, or lacking an anti-Mormon agenda, actually takes any notice of this nonsense. Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

I find it rather remarkable that someone actually thinks there's something significant in identifying just two (goal post seems to keep changing) nonsalvific teachings as crucial to one's standing as LDS.

I've never heard it suggested that being a Chapel or Internet Mormon made a lick of difference to "one's standing as LDS", let alone a crucial one.

The flood and cumorah issues are easiest to use because they're clear, not because they're "salvic". Especially since it is readily admitted that Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons do agree on the big (and unfalsifiable) issues. Although they might disagree over whether certain issues are "big" or not...

What if one believes in a global flood, but two Cumorahs? What if one believes in one Cumorah, but a local flood?

That would be exceedingly interesting, since the thinking that would lead someone to believe in a local flood is the same kind of thinking that gets people to believe in two Cumorahs. If I were to encounter such a person, I would give preference to the "flood" issue, since it is much clearer (and the Church does have a repeated, consistent teaching on the subject). And I suspect it would be pretty dang easy to convert such a person to the multiple cumorahs.

[Daniel Peterson]

My Malevolent Stalker dismisses my flat denial of any FARMS (Maxwell Institute) intervention in the matter of Rod Meldrum's volume and its distribution by Deseret Book as "purely a matter of semantics and equivocation."

I don't believe that I'm capable of denying it any more plainly and completely than I have, so there seems no alternative: We all need to bow before my Malevolent Stalker's superior evidence, which consists of . . . well, nothing really.

[Calm]

I've never heard it suggested that being a Chapel or Internet Mormon made a lick of difference to "one's standing as LDS", let alone a crucial one.

Really? Don't you at least think that is implied when someone states that God and the prophets are "Chapel Mormons" or talks about a schism leading to two belief systems, etc?

[structurecop]

Really? Don't you at least think that is implied when someone states that God and the prophets are "Chapel Mormons" or talks about a schism leading to two belief systems, etc?

Someone said that? That's silly. God obviously is a Dialogue Mormon, and the General Authorities are Improvement Era Mormons.

Anyway, when can we expect a FROB article on Mr. Meldrum's book?

[Black Moclips]

It is very amusing to read all the hub-bu regarding the labels "chapel" and "internet" mormons. Its also interesting to note some very prominent "internet" mormons here on the board insisting and proclaiming that they are really "chapel" mormons. It must be some subconscious reaction to being opposed to something with the word "chapel" in it.

But look! Another item made the official list:

Of those Latter-day Saints who are aware of Rodney Meldrum, Chapel Mormons believe he is doing a great work, whereas Internet Mormons wish he would just go away (although there is a not-so-subtle undercurrent of extreme dislike, if not abject hatred, simmering just beneath the surface).

What are the chances that a thread about this very topic is active while that item makes the list!

[maklelan]

BTW, what are your feelings about Noah's flood covering the whole planet, and there only being one "Hill Cumorah"? (You too, Scott Lloyd..) If the answers are "It was global, and there was only one", then you do indeed think like a Chapel Mormon. If your answers are anything else, then the line of thought that takes you to those answers is the definition of an Internet Mormon.

To begin with, of all the people who have a say in how my relationship to my community of faith is defined, your opinion falls well on the other side of that of my friend Simon, a gay Anglican priest. I've yet to be impressed by any degree of critical thought in your putatively more objective condescension toward Mormonism. I see a lot of predictable dilettantism, though.

To move on, this kind of thinking (or "line of thought") existed well before the internet. Those Mormons did not participate in chat rooms or on message boards, so I'm curious how they could be pigeonholed in a manner that would maintain the exact same distinction you find between "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon." If this line of thought is the definition, you must be able to preserve that distinction. Certainly participation on message boards alone does not divide us. Showing that anyone else made the distinction back then would also be necessary if we were to be thorough. I doubt you've thought of it, though. Were they "Library Mormons"? "College Mormons"? Please fill us in.

Lastly, all scholars who deal with the question of religious identity recognize that self-identity takes priority. I identify myself as a card-carrying, temple going, tithing paying, mission completed, temple married, Latter-day Saint. "Chapel Mormon" and "Internet Mormon" are artificial, reductive, and etic categories which are meaningless in the faith community to which I belong. (Ironically, they only exist on the internet!) I share the exact same doctrine as those around me and I perform all the same physical and spiritual mechanisms of my faith. Opinions about interpretation of scripture are as meaningful to categorization as the rabbinic question of whether or not a man with an uncircumcised slave can eat the passover (in other words, not meaningful at all). Second in importance is the question of official recognition. No distinction there in Mormonism. There are a few others, but coming up the rear are the opinions of those who wish to exclude and compartmentalize with their definitions; those who have an ideological goal with their definition. That's where you fall. Those opinions mean just slightly less than jack.

[Pahoran]

It is very amusing to read all the hub-bu regarding the labels "chapel" and "internet" mormons. Its also interesting to note some very prominent "internet" mormons here on the board insisting and proclaiming that they are really "chapel" mormons. It must be some subconscious reaction to being opposed to something with the word "chapel" in it.

The really cool thing about pop psychology is that absolutely nothing counts as evidence against the conclusions that are conjured by it. It is completely non-falsifiable. Do chapel-baptised, chapel-taught, chapel-attending Latter-day Saints object to having some dilettante polemicist invent bogus religious categories in order to dismiss their views as "Internet Mormonism?" Then, according to PopPsych devotees, they must "subconsciously" find those categories valid! As they would if they agreed with them, or ignored them completely.

Shadism at its most intellectually rigorous.

But look! Another item made the official list:

Of those Latter-day Saints who are aware of Rodney Meldrum, Chapel Mormons believe he is doing a great work, whereas Internet Mormons wish he would just go away (although there is a not-so-subtle undercurrent of extreme dislike, if not abject hatred, simmering just beneath the surface).

What are the chances that a thread about this very topic is active while that item makes the list!

What "official list" is that, and exactly why should we take notice of it?

<Spelling>

Regards,

Pahoran

[maklelan]

I've never heard it suggested that being a Chapel or Internet Mormon made a lick of difference to "one's standing as LDS", let alone a crucial one.

And yet it seems so critical to your worldview.

The flood and cumorah issues are easiest to use because they're clear, not because they're "salvic". Especially since it is readily admitted that Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons do agree on the big (and unfalsifiable) issues.

Readily admitted? I would think an agreement on the definition of terms would need to be reached before any products of these definitions can be called "readily admitted."

That would be exceedingly interesting, since the thinking that would lead someone to believe in a local flood is the same kind of thinking that gets people to believe in two Cumorahs.

Can you be more clear about what exactly this "line of thinking" entails, or can you only define by pointing out the opinions you've decided evince a distinct "line of thinking"?

[cinepro]

There are a few others, but coming up the rear are the opinions of those who wish to exclude and compartmentalize with their definitions; those who have an ideological goal with their definition.

Wait, are you saying that I would somehow "exclude" LDS? Exclude them from what?

As I've said so many times before, the distinction is useful for understanding the different approaches LDS have to certain subjects. Whatever you want to call them, the different approaches are easily visible in numerous exchanges on this very message board (currently there are some great examples in the Priesthood Ban thread, if you're willing to wade through it).

There's also a really good blog setup by a Chapel Mormon in which he duels Internet Mormons on the subjects of creation and evolution.

[cinepro]

And yet it seems so critical to your worldview.

Now it's a "worldview"?

Readily admitted? I would think an agreement on the definition of terms would need to be reached before any products of these definitions can be called "readily admitted."

I was pointing out that no one suggests that Chapel Mormons or Internet Mormons disagree over whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration, The Book of Mormon is true (and historical), or that Thomas Monson is the prophet today.

Can you be more clear about what exactly this "line of thinking" entails, or can you only define by pointing out the opinions you've decided evince a distinct "line of thinking"?

To put it simply, in any area where the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles, or publications of the Church veer into apparent conflict with scholarship or science, Internet Mormons try much harder (and give much more ground) in reconciling the two.

As I said, Noah's Flood is the clearest example of how this happens, but it also happens with the Creation/Evolution, blacks and the priesthood, and numerous other subjects.

[Black Moclips]

The really cool thing about pop psychology is that absolutely nothing counts as evidence against the conclusions that are conjured by it. It is completely non-falsifiable. Do chapel-baptised, chapel-taught, chapel-attending Latter-day Saints object to having some dilettante polemicist invent bogus religious categories in order to dismiss their views as "Internet Mormonism?" Then, according to PopPsych devotees, they must "subconsciously" find those categories valid! As they would if they agreed with them, or ignored them completely.

Shadism at its most intellectually rigorous.

What "official list" is that, and exactly why should we take notice of it?

<Spelling>

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, my psychology was Pop at best! It just makes chuckle that people get so serious about it. When I first read through the list describing the differences between Internets & Chapels years ago, I laughed outloud, as I could see the differences and the point being made. You see, in an EQ lesson I was teaching around that time, I actually said in class "Sometimes prophets speak as men and we need to determine what is doctrine and what is opinion." The room went deathly quiet and by the looks on their faces and their comments, I could tell I had the wrong audience! Oh crap, I wasn't on a message board, but in the chapel! I have no vested interest in the labels. I don't care if they keep getting used or not. I'm not an apologist and I don't consider myself a critic. But I can understand the terms and I get what he is saying, and it cracks me up. Simple as that. The more up in arms people get about it, just makes me wonder if they protesteth too mucheth.

As far as the official list goes, I just googled "Internet and Chapel mormons" and a website came up with a list of all the differences. I honestly don't know if was a Shades site or not. The one I quoted dealt with Meldrum, so I thought that was funny, as this is what the OP was about originally.

[cinepro]

What "official list" is that, and exactly why should we take notice of it?

Regards,

Pahoran

If you don't believe there is a distinction, and don't care about those who do, then you probably shouldn't.