Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[DBMormon]

I know many members on the fringe as well as critics say there is such a thing as Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. I also know many apoligetics say there is no such thing.

Being very well mixed in with what we separate into both groups I see some differences at least worth exploring.

Internet Mormons

- because they are hidden in cyberspace there is more liberty to dissent and to discuss openly controversial issues taking the side that would be deemed by the majority to be heretical.

- Internet Mormons are more aware of controversial issues and have more gray area in how they see the doctrine and history. They are also more aware of perceived evidences and supporting arguments

- Internet Mormons have a freedom on the internet that allows them to explore their beliefs and to take in information then a Latter-Day Saint would have in the context of a three hour block

Chapel Mormons

- while made up of some Internet Mormons and vice versa they have a tendency to see the gospel as Black and white.

- More likely to balk at a discussion of historical truths or doctrinal concerns even if based in fact.

- Will in a much larger proportion be unaware of Seer Stones, polyandry, book of Abraham concerns and much of the accurate historical and Doctrinal history.

- More likely to have false presumptions about urim and Thummin in translation, Age of the earth, evolution and other issues where they easily accepted a specific false belief because a leader stated it or wrote it in a book.

Misc.

- There will be in every congregation a handful of Internet Mormons - (on average) but very few within most wards will know who those folks are due to the correlated manuals and teaching used along with an unwillingness to put themselves too far out there.

There will also be a handful of mormons on internet boards and chats who try to stay far away from controversy or dissadence and so they seem to remain in the chapel Mormon range of thought though most likely moving at least in more awareness of appendages and peripheral issues.

Questions

- I am curious on your thoughts on the above. Do you agree disagree, lean one way or another

- Where do you see this paradigm (if you do) shifting in the next 20 years? How will that affect lessons? lesson material?

- The kinds of discussion seen as safe and permissable within the 3 hour block?

- A discussion of where you see yourself and why? Where would you prefer to be and why?

- any other random thoughts to steer this thread off track.... lol

Edited May 29, 2012 by reelmormon

[selek1]

I see the "paradigm" being refined over and over to suit the prevailing zeitgeist of the self-anointed "intellectual class" of anti-Mormons.

As you yourself admit (however unwillingly), there is considerable overlap between the alleged two categories- and the classifications (as such) are wholly and utterly arbitrary.

Like so much in the media today, the "Chapel Mormon versus Internet Mormon" meme is nothing more than a rhetorical trick designed to imply (and perhaps, create) a divide where there is none.

As such, just like the deceitful rhetorical tricks regarding race, minority status, wealth, povery, and class envy, this particular model will be redefined and relabeled as needed to advance the agenda.

Trivial things such as honor, integrity, or mere intellectual honesty shall not be allowed to impede the path of "progress", and shall be ground underfoot.

Edited May 29, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

I know many members on the fringe as well as critics say there is such a thing as Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. I also know many apoligetics say there is no such thing.

It's an invented false dichotomy. It was designed to marginalise and poison the well against any LDS defenders who appeal to scholarly and/or scientific defenses of their faith. The categories as used by Shades and his buddies have no basis in reality.

I have my own definitions of those terms.

Chapel Mormon: an actual Mormon who worships in an actual chapel.

Examples: Me, Dan Peterson.

Internet Mormon: a person of undetermined beliefs and/or institutional membership, who poses as a Mormon on the Internet in order to give their usually anti-Mormon or fringe views weight.

Examples: I'll leave that to your imagination.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It's just a silly false dichotomy.

(And now that selek1, Pahoran, and I have agreed on something, the Apocalypse of 2012 can commence as scheduled. Out of "the mouth of two or three witnesses" and all that.)

[selek1]

(And now that selek1, Pahoran, and I have agreed on something, the Apocalypse of 2012 can commence as scheduled.

Actually, it can commence eight months early....

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[CV75]

- any other random thoughts to steer this thread off track.... lol

People use and are motivated to use the technology at hand for good or ill, and are knowledgeable / skillful / able to use it in varying degrees. There is no inherent enmity (since one seems to be described as more favorable in comparison with the other) between those who use the Internet to pursue ideas and those who do not, just as there is not such enmity inherent in any other tool—this arises from the individual. So I think the terms and how they are described above are asinine, since the same traits displayed on the Internet are clearly revealed in real life as well. I think any person that behaves differently in each setting has something to worry about!

[cinepro]

I know many members on the fringe as well as critics say there is such a thing as Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. I also know many apoligetics say there is no such thing.

For me, the two terms are best used to describe different approaches people take to "truth" in the Church. The distinction is important because it helps people to understand why they can have radically different experiences in discussing different gospel subjects with people.

My own favorite litmus test, as you might guess from my sig, is Noah's flood.

I like it because it is a subject over which the scriptures and Church leaders have had clear and consistent teachings for the last 180+ years. And those teachings are directly opposed to the scientific view of the subject.

So Church members need to decide whether they are going to side with the Church teachings or not (and a position of "I don't know" counts as "not"). Chapel Mormons are those who will, Internet Mormons are those who won't.

A conversation about the Church and the gospel is very different depending on if you're talking with a Chapel Mormon or an Internet Mormon. There are even discussions on this board where the Chapel Mormons stick out for their stubborn allegiance to Church published teachings. Whether or not we wish to label these different approaches, it seems absurd to pretend they don't exist, or aren't important when talking to other Church members.

Obviously, "Internet Mormons" are found in LDS chapels every Sunday, and "Chapel Mormons" are found on the internet. The terms aren't strictly exclusive.

Edited May 29, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Just to go on the record: false dichotomy.

If there is anyone who would supposedly qualify as an "internet Mormon" it is me- anti-realist social construcivist, Pragmatic little old me.

But there is also no one more "chapel" than me either. Former bishop, ordinance worker and I actually attend church for more than three hours a week. Fancy that.

And guess what? Most important, I have a testimony, Big Time.

Edited May 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The terms aren't strictly exclusive.

... meaning the terms are useless.

Edited May 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

Dang it Jeremy- you stole another post before I could post it!

[selek1]

... meaning the terms are useless.

Outta rep points, so +1!

[volgadon]

My own favorite litmus test, as you might guess from my sig, is Noah's flood.

We all know how well that went when you attempted to classify me.

[rodheadlee]

My own favorite litmus test, as you might guess from my sig, is Noah's flood.

I like it because it is a subject over which the scriptures and Church leaders have had clear and consistent teachings for the last 180+ years. And those teachings are directly opposed to the scientific view of the subject.

So Church members need to decide whether they are going to side with the Church teachings or not (and a position of "I don't know" counts as "not"). Chapel Mormons are those who will, Internet Mormons are those who won't.

Why do we need to decide? Some things can be left to be decided later when more info is available.. I'm sure there was a Noah, he was a Prophet and he built an ark etc. But I don't think it's all that important to know if the flood was global or just seemed global to Noah.

[Buzzard]

These days, everyone is an internet Mormon, in the sense that almost without exception, every active-and inactive-Mormon that I know is aware, to the extent that they want to research them, the major historical "issues". If there is a difference, it's that chapel Mormons have either resolved those concerns to their satisfaction, or, due to the strength of their spiritual witness, just don't worry about them. Internet Mormons would be that population that either is trying to resolve in their own mind the historical and doctrinal issues we hash out here ad infinitum, or have decided that those issues contradict the claims of the church. Their reaction ranges from keeping up a facade for the sake of their family, through telling themselves that the church is a good institution to guide their life by even if they no have a testimony, all the way to active opposition, be it posting on exmormon.org or running around giving talks in EV churches about how they found the real Jesus.

[BCSpace]

The whole dichotomy is based on the notion that Mormons who have access to the internet and use it regularly are going to be more nuanced and "cafeteria-like" (picking and choosing what doctrines they will believe) in their acceptance and belief in LDS doctrine and those that don't will believe all the doctrine literally.

There couldn't be a bigger error in correlation. More accurate dichotomies that I've noticed could be explained by:

-Those who served a mission vs. those who didn't.

-Those who served missions in the US, UK, and Canada and those who served elsewhere.

-Those who are politically liberal vs. those who are politically conservative

-And the biggest one I've noticed are what I call Fielding-McConkites (those who have erroneously accepted "Mormon Doctrine" etc. as doctrinal works or at least worthy of quoting authoritatively) vs. everyone else.

I'm sure there are a few others.

[DH]

Questions

- I am curious on your thoughts on the above. Do you agree disagree, lean one way or another

I think there is some truth to the definitions you gave, but that one doesn't have to choose between being one or the other. I consider myself both a Chapel Mormon and an Internet Mormon. I am active in the Church, attend every week, and hold a current temple recommend. I also consider myself an Internet Mormon because I discuss Mormonism on the Internet in a way that is both impractical (time constraints being one reason) and frowned upon during church meetings. So it's a false dichotomy in the sense that you don't really have to choose between them, but it may be useful to define the terms in the way you did on order to talk about how we talk about the Gospel, if you see what I mean.

- Where do you see this paradigm (if you do) shifting in the next 20 years? How will that affect lessons? lesson material?

My seer stone has been on the fritz, and I can't really say for sure! It's possible the Church won't change its lessons or manuals much, if at all, but it's also possible that it will open the discussion up a bit in an attempt to forestall people losing their testimonies because they learned things on the Internet they never heard at church.

- The kinds of discussion seen as safe and permissable within the 3 hour block?

They discourage speculation, downplay "weird" doctrines, and try to make everybody feel as safe as possible. Don't rock the boat is the name of the game.

- A discussion of where you see yourself and why? Where would you prefer to be and why?

I see myself as an active Mormon who is interested enough in the Church to go beyond the three-hour block and continue the discussion during the week, often online.

- any other random thoughts to steer this thread off track.... lol

Nope!

Edited May 29, 2012 by DH

[cinepro]

Just to go on the record: false dichotomy.

If there is anyone who would supposedly qualify as an "internet Mormon" it is me- anti-realist social construcivist, Pragmatic little old me.

But there is also no one more "chapel" than me either. Former bishop, ordinance worker and I actually attend church for more than three hours a week. Fancy that.

And guess what? Most important, I have a testimony, Big Time.

FWIW, the distinction between "Chapel Mormon" and "Internet Mormon" isn't one of faithfulness, belief, or degree of service. Both have "testimonies" and both are equally indignant if they think they are being accused of being less faithful than the other.

I would add that Chapel Mormons seem to be shocked when they find out about Internet Mormons and their unusual beliefs, whereas Internet Mormons just do the best they can to pretend there isn't a distinction.

Edited May 29, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

I know many members on the fringe as well as critics say there is such a thing as Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. I also know many apoligetics say there is no such thing.

Being very well mixed in with what we separate into both groups I see some differences at least worth exploring.

I prefer to just be called Mormon.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I'd rather be called by my name. If not that then a Latter-day Saint.

[DBMormon]

So Church members need to decide whether they are going to side with the Church teachings or not (and a position of "I don't know" counts as "not"). Chapel Mormons are those who will, Internet Mormons are those who won't.

I don't think this is accurate. Just beacause one fits into the internet catigory much cleaner doesn't nessacarily mean he won't accept church teachings. But it does mean he won't accept the false statements by one leader at any one given time.

[DBMormon]

-And the biggest one I've noticed are what I call Fielding-McConkites (those who have erroneously accepted "Mormon Doctrine" etc. as doctrinal works or at least worthy of quoting authoritatively) vs. everyone else.

I would say here that many chapel mormons are McConkie Fielding Mormons and the issue of their preaching a few false ideas and concepts was to me a huge setback for the church theologically. Not that it currently affects the church itself or it's current leadership, but that way too many members have way too many false beliefs due to the words of those two. I also have no problem at the same time saying they were called of God, were right 95% of the time, but got it wrong enough to amke a multi generation impact on members holding onto false concepts.

[thesometimesaint]

reelmormon:

The only thing I'm required to believe is the truth.

[DBMormon]

So it's a false dichotomy in the sense that you don't really have to choose between them, but it may be useful to define the terms in the way you did on order to talk about how we talk about the Gospel, if you see what I mean.

So then how does this impact how one teaches accurate doctrine in the midst of 95% of each Ward is willing to either support or pacified by some of the false teachings that run rampant. unfortunately in an effort to not criticize past leaders current leadership will usually not address some of these issues directly or if they do they will not return to discuss them much more beyond the initial statement. Ex: when will we have a talk that says "Brothers and Sisters one can be a faithful member of the church and still believe or not in evolution, worldwide Flood, age of the earth, ect... A talk like that would help a lot

They discourage speculation, downplay "weird" doctrines, and try to make everybody feel as safe as possible. Don't rock the boat is the name of the game.

This is the safest approach... short term only. Meanwhile long term solutions involve more openess with past doctrinal and historical issues if we are going to prevent that group from leaving who feel betrayed

Edited May 29, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

FWIW, the distinction between "Chapel Mormon" and "Internet Mormon" isn't one of faithfulness, belief, or degree of service. Both have "testimonies" and both are equally indignant if they think they are being accused of being less faithful than the other.

I would add that Chapel Mormons seem to be shocked when they find out about Internet Mormons and their unusual beliefs, whereas Internet Mormons just do the best they can to pretend there isn't a distinction.

I have taught two lessons where I mentioned Joseph used a seer stone and explained how.... that was foreign to the 90 and 9

and it felt like I was teaching false doctrine... it was very hesitantly accepted by many and if it wasn't for the trust I had built up with each of them through my years of church service and understanding of things.... they may have balked

It just frustrates me a lot that false stuff seems believed by the majority but also that we rarely address it other then here where we all know the issue already