Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[bcuzbcuz]

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

The internet didn't exist while I was still active, but I did have access to many scholarly works and a personal library of church history. I am of such an age that reading a page from my computer is not something I find comfortable; I rather read from old fashioned books.

But were I still active with my former position in the bishopric I would recommend against people researching church history and church information from the internet.

Firstly, the information is impersonal and poorly nuanced. Emoticons just don't measure up to human contact and the written word as found on internet sites can very easily be misunderstood.

Secondly, and this may come as a shock to some, information on the internet cannot be trusted. All kinds of weirdos can hide behind a screen of anonymity, including me. Information on the internet, can cover almost any subject, whether flying saucers or teletubby sexuality, and seem entirely reasonable.

Thirdly, the internet is not the forum for warm and cuddly. Mere mention of certain subjects arouses attacks of hostility. If someone is asking a question springing from an actual insecurity or sincere questioning, but looking also for reassurance, they may be met with aggression and sarcasm and nastiness.

If it were in my power I would forbid certain aspects of the internet but provide person to person question and answer possibilities from knowledgeable sources.

[DBMormon]

Many of you have followed several of the threads I started. I don't want this one to go off track into a faith crisis type thread. I would rather address how agreeing on which framework is more appropriate? and if you feel the "internet Mormon" is a more honest or a better framework how does a small handful of members help to change the larger group to help facillitate better understanding.

This may seem like I want to force the Chapel mormons to catch up so they can know what some do or "what I do". That is not the reason. But I do think it is important to help the majority to see that there is flexibility in beliefs that "Internet" Mormons seem more willing to allow that doesn't force one to conform to nth degree or feel like an outsider. in otherwords. Too many people have such a stringent and sometimes false box the church must fit in that when one either is trying to find his way through new information he didn't know or if someone comes into the group already not holding to those notions... there is resistance and it is uncomfortable. i know it is normal, no one likes new things and we are almost all slow to adapt to new info.

My opinion though is that even if one is in the minority and there is resistance, when it comes to correcting false notions or faithfully giving someone a better way to see things should not be stifled

Edited May 29, 2012 by reelmormon

[Benjamin McGuire]

There are always two groups of people in the world - those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't. There are also always three groups of people in the world. Those that can add, and those who can't.

I think the real problem with this notion it the label. The idea of a "chapel mormon" and the idea of an "internet mormon" seem to carry connotations that aren't very useful, and seem more divisive than helpful. On the other hand, we can find all sorts of systems for classifying belief and our attempts to deal with ambiguity. These kinds of classifications are not aimed specifically at LDS members, but often they seem relevant. Even our leaders sometimes dabble in these ideas (as with Elder Bruce Hafen's The Believing Heart, where he breaks down three different stages of faith and acceptance of ambiguity). I think that understanding these issues can be helpful and significant for members - but much of any value that might be there is lost when the notions are presented in ways like the internet/chapel dichotomy or the in-your-face sort of harsh divisive approach that seems to come from some of our other members.

At any rate, to get back to Reelmormon's question, I don't think the issue is about which one is better. They don't seem to be placed into a one or the other sort of situation. I think that every member of the church moves through different stages of belief over time. I do not think that either stage is the end of the process - they may be separate paths to a different place, one may follow the other. Framing it in this way kinds of precludes much meaningful discussion on the issue in my opinion - and I think that the original suggestion of this model was not made with an intention to understand, but rather with the intention of being divisive.

The key, I think is to encourage people to develop a more mature perspective and a more mature faith. But, it is not healthy for us to assert that our skepticism is better than their simple faith, or that our truth is more valid - and in doing so to push them into something that they are not prepared for. Rarely does this change a person's perspective. Here is a bit from Hafen's book:

Given, then, the existence of a gap for most of us between where we stand and where we would like to be, and given that we will have at least some experiences that make us wonder what we are to do, I think there are three different levels in dealing with ambiguity.

At level one, there are two typical attitudes, one of which is that we simply do not—perhaps cannot—even see the problems that exist. Some seem almost consciously to filter out any perception of a gap between the real and the ideal. For those in this category, the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. These cheerful ones are happy, spontaneous, optimistic, and they always manage to hang loose. They are able to weather many storms that would seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on.

A second group at level one has quite a different problem with the gap between what is and what ought to be. Those in this category eliminate the frustrating distance between the real and the ideal by, in effect, erasing the inner circle of reality. They cling to the ideal so single-mindedly that they just don't feel the pain that would come from facing the truth about themselves, about others, or about the world around them. I suppose it is this category that is so frequently represented in the letters to the editor of the school papers at BYU and Ricks, where such shock is occasionally expressed that some person or some part of the institution has fallen short of perfection and the writer is aghast—"surely not at the Lord's university."

Those in this group seem unable to distinguish between imperfections that matter a great deal and those that may not matter so much. I think Hugh Nibley must have had them in mind when he once spoke of those who find it more commendable to get up at 5:00 A.M. to write a bad book than it is to get up at 9:00 A.M. to write a good book. While self-discipline is a virtue, it is obvious to Brother Nibley that the exact hour when we arise is not as important as what we do once we are up.

I recall a group of students who once discussed which of the two types of people I have just described offered the most appropriate model for emulation. They felt they had to choose between being relaxed and happy about the gospel or being an intense perfectionist. After listening to the discussion, I felt that both of these categories suffer from the same limitation. It is not much of a choice when one must select between a frantic concern with perfection and a forced superficial happiness.

Both perspectives lack depth; they understand things too quickly, and they may draw conclusions from their experience too easily. Neither is well prepared for adversity, and I fear that the first strong wind that comes along will blow them over. I believe this is primarily because their roots have not sunk far enough into the soil of experience to establish a firm foundation. Both also reflect the thinness of a philosophy that is untempered by common sense. In both cases, it would be helpful simply to be more realistic about life's experiences, even if that means facing some questions and limitations that leave us feeling uncomfortable. That very discomfort can motivate us toward real growth. As President Harold B. Lee said, the true church is intended not only to comfort the afflicted, but to afflict the comfortable.

We should then step up to level two, where we see things for what they are, for only then can we deal with reality in a meaningful and constructive way.

If we are not willing to grapple with the frustration that comes from facing bravely the uncertainties we encounter, we may never develop the kind of spiritual maturity that is necessary for our ultimate preparations. Heber C. Kimball once said the Church has yet to pass through some very close places, and those who are living on "borrowed light" will not be able to stand when those days come.

We need to develop the capacity to form judgments of our own about the value of ideas, opportunities, or people who may come into our lives. We won't always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is "Church approved," because new ideas don't always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether they have been reviewed at Church headquarters. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences that are not obviously related to some Church word or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends.

We must develop sufficient independence of judgment and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction that may come to us. When those times come, we cannot be living on borrowed light. We should not be deceived by the clear-cut labels others may use to describe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear. Our encounters with reality and disappointment are, actually, vital stages in the development of our maturity and understanding.

Despite the value of a level-two awareness, however, there are some serious hazards at this stage. One's acceptance of the clouds of uncertainty may be so complete that the iron rod fades into the receding mist and skepticism becomes a guiding philosophy. Often, this perspective comes from erasing the outer circle, representing the ideal, or what ought to be, and then focusing excessively on the inner circle of reality.

While teaching law school, I noticed how common it is for first-year law students to experience great frustration as they discover that our legal system is characterized not by hard, fast rules, but by legal principles that often appear to contradict each other. I recall one new student who approached me after class to express the confusion he was encountering in his study of the law. He said he had what he called "a low tolerance for ambiguity." He had been wondering if part of his problem was that only weeks before, he had returned from a mission, where everything was crisp and clear, where even many of the words he spoke were provided for him. To feel successful, all he had to do was follow the step-by-step plan given him for each day and each task on his mission. Law school was making him feel totally at sea as he groped for simple guidelines that would tell him what to do. His circumstance was one more example of what is typical of college and university students in the early years of their experience.

However, by the time our law students reach their third year of study, it is not uncommon for them to develop such a high tolerance for ambiguity that they are skeptical about everything. Where formerly they felt they had all the answers, but just did not know what the questions were, they now seem to have all the questions but few of the answers.

I find myself wanting to tell our third-year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the Church and elsewhere, because they can become contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves. I have seen some of them try out their new intellectual tools in a priesthood quorum or a Sunday School class. A well-meaning teacher will make a point they think is a little silly, and they will feel an irresistible urge to leap to their feet and publicly deflate the teacher's momentum. If they are successful, they begin looking for other opportunities to point out the exception to any rule anybody can state. They begin to delight in cross-examination of the unsuspecting, just looking for somebody's bubble of idealism floating around so that they can pop it with their shiny new pin of skepticism. And in all that, they fail to realize that when some of those bubbles pop, out goes much of the feeling of trust, loyalty, harmony, and sincerity so essential to preserving the Spirit of the Lord.

If that begins to happen in our wards, in our homes, or in our marriages, we will have begun to destroy the fragile fabric of trust that binds us together in all loving relationships. People may come away from their encounters with us wondering how we can possibly have a deep commitment to the gospel and say some of the things we say.

I am not suggesting that we should always just smile and nod our approval, implying that everything is wonderful and that our highest hope is for everybody to have a nice day. That is level one. I am suggesting that we must realize the potential for evil as well as good that may come with what education can do to our minds and our way of dealing with other people.

The dangers of which I speak are not limited to our relations with others. They can become very personal, prying into our own hearts in unhealthy ways. The ability to acknowledge ambiguity is not a final form of enlightenment. Once our increased tolerance and patience enable us to look longer and harder at difficult questions and pat answers, we must be very careful, lest our basic posture toward Church-related matters gradually shift from being committed to being noncommittal. That is not a healthy posture.

Indeed, in many ways, a Church member who moves from a stage of commitment to a stage of being tentative and noncommittal is in a worse position than one who has never experienced a basic commitment. The previously committed person may too easily assume that he has already been through the "positive-mental-attitude" routine and "knows better" now, as he judges things. He may assume that being submissive, meek, obedient, and humble are matters with which he is already familiar, and that he has finally outgrown the need to work very hard at being that way again. Those are the assumptions of a hardened heart.

...

It seems to me that the most productive response to ambiguity is at level three, where we view things not only with our eyes wide open but with our hearts wide open as well. When we do that, there will be many times when we are called upon to take some action, even though we need more evidence before knowing what to do. Such occasions may range from following the counsel of the prophets when we don't understand the basis for their conclusions, to accepting a home-teaching assignment when we are far too busy to take on any more projects. My experience has taught me always to give the Lord and his Church the benefit of any doubts I may have when some such case seems too close to call.

I stress that the willingness to be believing and accepting in these cases is a very different matter from blind obedience. It is, rather, a loving and knowing kind of obedience.

The English writer G. K. Chesterton once distinguished among "optimists," "pessimists," and "improvers," which roughly corresponds to my three levels of dealing with ambiguity. He concluded that both the optimists and the pessimists look too much at only one side of things. He observed that neither the extreme optimist nor the extreme pessimist would ever be of much help in improving the human condition, because people can't solve problems unless they are willing to acknowledge that a problem exists and yet also retain enough genuine loyalty to do something about it.

More specifically, Chesterton wrote that the evil of the excessive optimist (level one) is that he will "defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, 'My cosmos, right or wrong.' He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of frontbench official answer to all attacks, soothing everyone with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world."

On the other hand, the evil of the pessimist (level two), wrote Chesterton, is "not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises." In being the so-called "candid friend," the pessimist is not really candid. Chesterton continued: "He is keeping something back—his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. . . . He is using the ugly knowledge which was allowed him [in order] to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it."

Ben M.

[Darren10]

Since the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve both attend chapel mettings as well as use the internet ot share and spread the gospel, are they internet Mormons or Chapel Mormons?

[Darren10]

Are these "internet Mormons"?

http://mormon.org/

[DBMormon]

I love how sarcasm is used. An internet mormon doesn't describe every mormon on the internet anymore then a tree hugger only describes people who actually hug trees. It is a metaphor and we can shrug off this jokingly but there is a wide divide between the majority of members who understand the thouroughness, diversity, and intricacy of the church's doctrine and history and those who understand the gospel in simple terms of black and white, take anything and everything LDS at face value. It is called internet mormon because the internet has allowed this group to grow giving individuals who would have never had a chance to take in so much diverse info on the church to do so.

Mormon.org does not qualify as "internet Mormon" friendly as they promote faith and belief rather then spending time on historical issues and member believed innacuracies.

It isn't about whether you attend a chapel or use the internet, it is about your awareness of the scope of the church's history and doctrine rather then having a very immature comprehension of the church.

If the label is so intrusive to productive discussion change it

new labels

A.)95% majority of LDS who have naive or immature understanding of the church's foundational history, and doctrinal theology outside of basic church material and who do very little to increase their worldly and quasi spiritual understanding outside of church approved material either by choice or naiveness

B) 5% minority who are aware of both the faith promoting and faith destructive issues that one does not encounter in the time spent at church but where if one desires can be found on the internet if one proactively researches LDS information

Is that better. And yes there is no way to ever split these demographics perfectly clean and there are 100's of other things that could be added but for the sake of moving forward please work with these. There are large understanding/information aware gaps between the majority and minority of LDS members.

[CV75]

how does a small handful of members help to change the larger group to help facillitate better understanding.

There are many places people can go—authentic and virtual—to interact with others. All types go to all types of places. Some places resonate more with some people than with others. Some people are comfortable in a number of settings and some are very particular. Jesus dining with sinners immediately comes to mind. It doesn’t matter where a Mormon chooses to relate to others as long as he genuinely stands as a witness of God and is staying out of trouble himself.

The Internet is just another place where all types say and do all types of things for all types of reasons.

If someone goes to a bar, gets drunk and what-not, and comes to Church the next day for more (or to introduce more) of the same, he will be disappointed and disappoint others he tries to relate to. If he comes to Church the next day with an open or repentant mind, that's another thing altogether and is unlikely to be disspointed or dissapoint others.

[CV75]

Is that better.

No, it is incredibly generally judgemental.

[CV75]

There are large understanding/information aware gaps between the majority and minority of LDS members.

Not according to Abraham 3:18!

[KevinG]

Chapel Mormon meet Internet Mormon.

Once I get past the condescending attitude of those who use the term chapel Mormon to describe people they think are closed minded and ignorant of real knowledge I take comfort in the fact that half the priesthood holders in church have ready access to any gospel topic or discussion on their tablet computers. The ward even has guest access to their network.

The burning topics of the blogging intelligentsia are known and studied by the Elders of Israel and most of them get a roll of the eyes and a "been there done that" response when brought up in class. For internet Mormons who still think they are different or more informed than the average Mormon who bothers to put on a dress or suit and show up on Sunday: Being unable to reconcile others informed faith with your inability to get past hobby horse issues does not make you intellectual, informed or inspired.

Edited May 29, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

There are large understanding/information aware gaps between the majority and minority of LDS members.

That's OK - someday with faith, repentance and endurance they may also know what God has taught the rest of us.

[bcuzbcuz]

Chapel Mormon meet Internet Mormon.

I don't get it.

Was this photoshopped?

[KevinG]

I don't get it.

Was this photoshopped?

No Michelangelo really painted an I-pad hundreds of years before the birth of Steve Jobs.

Edited May 29, 2012 by KevinG

[cinepro]

Since the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve both attend chapel mettings as well as use the internet ot share and spread the gospel, are they internet Mormons or Chapel Mormons?

To the degree that their talks in conference, articles in Church magazines and the curriculum for Sunday School and Institute reflect the beliefs of the FP and Q12, they would have to be Chapel Mormons.

I suppose it's possible that there are Apostles who secretly believe in the possibility of a limited Noah's flood, an Adam with a body evolved from lower forms of life, physical death occurring on the Earth before the Fall of Adam, a universe created from a big bang, and that there are two (or more) Hill Cumorahs. If that is the case, they have done a spectacular job of hiding their beliefs from other members of the Church, and until they decide to go public, we can only go by what they actually do or say.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Argument from silence.

[KevinG]

Oh brother - being an Apostle by its very nature means your calling is to minister to the world as a special witness of Christ. I don't see speculating about tangential scriptural issues in that job description.

[ERayR]

The internet/chapel Mormon thing is ridiculous. There are Mormons in various stages of personal development. Some of them use the internet to research and communicate, some don't. There are those who, no doubt,who would like to think there was some great schism within the church. There has, since its restoration, been disagreements along lines of different understanding. I suppose it will always be so until everybody agrees with me.

[Darren10]

Chapel Mormon meet Internet Mormon.

Kevin, THAT, is really funny.

[KevinG]

I have seen more tablets in Sunday School and Priesthood lately. They spring up like mushrooms. There isn't a single issue or factoid that cannot be called up in an instant even in our Ward Buildings.

It is pure irony that there are small castes of critics who are so ill informed about what the average Mormon knows about their own religion yet cloister themselves in isolated and often misinformed cliques on Mormon themed discussion sites, repeating the mantras of their thought leaders and vociferously mocking any perspective from faithful members.

The more I hear the pop psychological diagnoses of group-think, willful ignorance, anti-intellectualism, blind faith, etc. My own amateur diagnosis of their psychological projection is buoyed by compelling evidence.

[KevinG]

One piece of the chapel v internet split I will agree with. Most chapel Mormons are busy with a life including raising children/grandchildren, performing volunteer work in callings and the community, preparing lessons, volunteering administrative time as ward leaders, being involved teaching and guiding youth through auxiliary programs, providing for their family through nurture or jobs, consecrating their time talents and energy to the building of the Kingdom of God on earth, etc.

They have little time to parse words with those whose only knowledge and interaction with real Mormonism is on the interwebz.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have seen more tablets in Sunday School and Priesthood lately. They spring up like mushrooms.

Not from me. I have an iPod Touch. It will do everything a tablet does, but is far less ostentatious. I can carry it in my pocket.

I used to carry a Palm PDA. An iPod Touch is, I believe, very much like what a PDA would have been if Palm hadn't abandoned support of it and thus thrown all its past customers under the bus.

[Darren10]

Mormon.org does not qualify as "internet Mormon" friendly as they promote faith and belief rather then spending time on historical issues and member believed innacuracies.

It isn't about whether you attend a chapel or use the internet, it is about your awareness of the scope of the church's history and doctrine rather then having a very immature comprehension of the church.

If the label is so intrusive to productive discussion change it

new labels

A.)95% majority of LDS who have naive or immature understanding of the church's foundational history, and doctrinal theology outside of basic church material and who do very little to increase their worldly and quasi spiritual understanding outside of church approved material either by choice or naiveness

B) 5% minority who are aware of both the faith promoting and faith destructive issues that one does not encounter in the time spent at church but where if one desires can be found on the internet if one proactively researches LDS information

Is that better. And yes there is no way to ever split these demographics perfectly clean and there are 100's of other things that could be added but for the sake of moving forward please work with these. There are large understanding/information aware gaps between the majority and minority of LDS members.

(Bold mine)

Boy, talk about condescending remarks! Just say it the way you see it, reelmormon: there's mature and immature Mormons. There's naive and enlightened Mormons. The former just go to church and worship and strictly read "church-approved matierials" while the latter go out and read beyond these materials as well as go beyond simple Sunday brick and mortar worship. Sheesh, you sure do know how to spit upon the LDS masses.

You'd probably classify my wife as an "immature" Mormon. She goes to church, reads the study manuals while I, the "enlightened" Mormon, read a lot online from the scholars. She frequently finds my views a bizzare and "out there". That, of course, according to your posts, is because she's "immature" in her Mormon growth. In fact, just last night she told me I was on "shaky ground" because I showed her the macuahuitl I posted about here the other day. She did, however say that she really ejoys how I desire to learn through study the aspects of the Book of Mormon. I told her I'm just glad she no longer swears at me when I present her a weird look into the Book of Mormon or something historical of the LDS Church. But, in the end, what's important? That would be faith and obdience to God. She knows full well the truthfulness of the restored gospel and I find myself frequently going to her to get insights about the Book of Mormon or other things. Also, you'll find LDS scholars conjoinig their foundational spiritual testimony of the LDS Church and its divine head while talking about their scholarly research. I'd even say that if this foundation of theirs is not growing, then their research is for naught.

Black and white versus gray? I do not see it that way. In fact, I think both scholars and the "naive" both see things black and white and not gray. Perhaps some interpretations of scripture isn't as black and white as some of the "naive" Mormons think it is but all of use need to grow and "mature" in the gospel, and ironically, vieiwing the brick and mortar worshippers as needing more growth than the "enlightend" Mormons is in and of itself being very naive.

The leaders of the LDS Church are not only spiritually founded in God and his restored truth on a very fundamental level but they are well aware of all the controversies regarding the Church, its history, doctrines, teachings, and scriptures. The two go hand and hand it seems.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Darren10

[KevinG]

Not from me. I have an iPod Touch. It will do everything a tablet does, but is far less ostentatious. I can carry it in my pocket.

I used to carry a Palm PDA. An iPod Touch is, I believe, very much like what a PDA would have been if Palm hadn't abandoned support of it and thus thrown all its past customers under the bus.

Let us mark this special occasion where a Utah Mormon was demonstrably less obnoxious than a Georgia Mormon. I don't expect it will happen again soon.

[DBMormon]

Ben,

I really enjoyed the long quote you attached. It helps oe to decide when it i best to let a sleeping dog lay or when correction is needed.

[Bob Crockett]

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.

I've observed that Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder McConkie remain heavily quoted amongst the Brethren and in manuals. I see no evidence from the church for your criticism. How about pointing me to a source among the Brethren or church publications which prove your point?

I think very little of the chapel/Internet dichotomy. But I also think very little of anonymous posters who claim also to have church ecclesiastical positions. I can't imagine that when Christ told his disciples to witness to the world He authorized anonymous attacks against His apostles.