Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[DBMormon]

Cinepro said = 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.

For those on here who see themselves as defenders to the nth degree, why have the leaders not spoken in conference about the earth being millions of years old? Flood not universal? How often do they in conference mention that a member can believe evolution and still be accepted as a full faith all in believing mormon? Out side of one time, when did an apostle mention that joseph put a stone in a hat and translated. And that one time was to a mature group of brethren called as mission presidents. Never in General Conference and rarely in the Ensign (once a decade). I just think it would do a lot of good to let members know the amount of flexibility they have in their beliefs so that some might be less judgemental and condeming of others. Most members believe they have to tow the line of any word spoken by a GA, when Elder Christofferson just recently pointed out in a soft way... that GA's misspeak and get it wrong sometimes. members are not as aware of this flexibility as some seem to think

[ERayR]

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.

That may be true to some extent but some of us do all those things and still waste time on the net.

[KevinG]

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?

But I also think very little of anonymous posters who claim also to have church ecclesiastical positions.

You ever notice when someone makes the appeal to authority (pro or anti) they never say... "When i served as a Nursery worker I learned that..."

[KevinG]

That may be true to some extent but some of us do all those things and still waste time on the net.

Yes - to a degree. Mormon and Mormonism Scholars are a rare breed and not representative of the church or those who oppose it. The image of the ignorant housewife parroting the words out of a Sunday School manual as the end all be all of her doctrinal knowledge is insulting and wrong.

[ERayR]

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.

It is a shame that a few errors has cause such a wholesale condemnation of their works. Most of which are very good.

[DBMormon]

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.

I 100% agree except that their predesessors (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Fielding, McConkie, Benson, Kimball) all spoke on tangential scriptural issues and have already shoved the snowball down the hill. Each passing generation has had to deal with and handle it. No when the time to take tough measures and fix it occurs, all of a sudden they are not to speak on tangential scriptural issues.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think this is right on the money- tolerance for ambiguity is probably ultimately what this perceived difference between chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons is all about.

It has nothing to do with faithfulness or whether or not you have been on a mission- it has to do with the degree with which one takes texts to be literal as opposed to figurative/symbolic.

Kevin Christensen has often mentioned the Perry scale, and it couldn't hurt to post a bit more about it now.

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry-positions.html

[mfbukowski]

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.

Please read up on Perry's stages of cognitive development. These views are not mutually exclusive but are different descriptions of "what happened" from different points of view, for different purposes.

When children ask where they came from, do you "lie" to them or do you tell them something based on their level of understanding? Which explanation is "true"?

They both are. It's like the question of whether or not light is a wave or a particle. It is both and neither- but different explanations work better within given contexts for given purposes.

[DBMormon]

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.

Since all of you are in here with me and I have seen numerous posts from each of you.... can I assume this quote does not describe any of you? pot calling kettle black.

And no, I am not doing all the above but I have a wife, four children, serve in a demanding calling, teach non credit religious classes at a university, work full time so please be careful as I consider myself an internet Mormon but one who hopes, and finds reason to believe.

I am sure every other individual here could make a list of what they do... that seemed like a dichotomy too

Those who are on the computer do not serve their families or community

Those who are not on computer have accomplished little in the home or neighborhood or school

[mfbukowski]

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.

GRRRRRRRRRRR I feel your pain brotha! I have a full size folding keyboard collecting dust when sometimes I just want to write a fleeting thought in Word or even a text file- instead of trying to type with my thumbs. I get so busy searching for letters I forget what I was going to say!!

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Argument from silence.

I'm not sure what you mean.

When an apostle stands in conference and teaches that a belief in the Big Bang is an "error", how is that an argument from silence? When the official Church magazine publishes an article by an Old Testament scholar representing the Church's position as Noah's flood being global in scope (and emphatically denouncing the alternate "limited" theories), how is that an argument from silence?

In my experience, "Chapel Mormons" hear what is taught in General Conference and Church publications and the believe it. They don't look for reasons not to believe it. They don't have lengthy arguments about whether or not a Church leader is mistaken or only expressing his opinion. They don't try to change what is taught (or engage in convoluted semantics) to help it mesh with science or other theories.

Whatever you want to call it, that approach is very different than what is found in other circles, and anyone who wants to discuss the Church and its teachings will have to adapt their conversation (whether they realize it or not, and whether they decide to give the different approaches names or not).

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion they're not entitled to their own facts.

The Church takes no position on the Big Bang, or the scope of The Flood. Each member is free to decide for themselves in exactly the same way the Church takes no position on the Pythagorean Theorem.

When they get up in General Conference and disavow Hugh Nibley as having been a member in good standing then maybe you'll have a valid argument

[DBMormon]

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?

really?????? WOW...

ok

“Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.” - joseph Fielding smith

Joseph Fielding Smith's Origin of Man is an absolute farse in it's science and reasoning

Bruce R McConkie's 1000 errors in Mormon Doctrine including Catholic Church as great and abominable church

there are many, numerous errored beliefs held stemming from incorrect things leaders say

There are tons of false concepts from these two but here is a start.

there are many others from other leaders as well. but I am sure that I will soon be told How wrong I am about these... Please tell me

[DBMormon]

The Church takes no position on the Big Bang, or the scope of The Flood. Each member is free to decide for themselves in exactly the same way the Church takes no position on the Pythagorean Theorem.

Except that some leaders taught their opinions from the pulpit or wrote it in a book and labeled it "mormon doctrine"

Edited May 29, 2012 by reelmormon

[Sophocles]

Several years ago Scott Lloyd denounced the Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy, while simultaneously admitting that he basically sees the same thing Cinepro has described in this thread.

So he came up with his own labels for the same groups. Chapel Mormons are now Folk Mormons. And Internet Mormons are now Orthodox Mormons. Try as I might, I can't see any difference between the Chapel/Internet dichotomy and the Folk/Orthodox dichotomy, except that the latter is more explicitly judgmental toward the Chapel/Folk types.

He describes them as follows:

On the one hand, we have Mormons who seek to learn and understand the authoritative doctrines, policies and positions of the Church so as to use them as guidelines for their own faith, belief, worship. For the purpose of discussion, I shall call them Orthodox Mormons.

On the other hand, we have Mormons who, for whatever reason—laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever—cling to folk doctrine as though it were scripture. I shall call them Folk Mormons.

Compare that with Shades' characterization of the Chapel/Internet divide:

Therefore, a dichotomy has been created: Mormonism as interpreted by the apologists, and Mormonism as interpreted by the average member and by the prophets themselves.

These two different schools of thought are typically encountered in separate venues. Since Mormonism's controversial issues are widely and freely discussed on the Internet, many apologists likewise seek to make their own views and interpretations known via the Internet. By the same token, Mormonism's chapels are settings for religious instruction and ordinances—as opposed to places for debate or argument—so only official teachings are shared therein. Therefore, the adherents of these separate schools of thought can be termed "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons"—not because of the only places they inhabit, of course, but because of the places one is most likely to encounter them.

It seems to me that apologists don't reject Shades' characterization out of hand because the divide does not exist. Clearly there is a divide, as Scott Lloyd observes, and as Cinepro has ably demonstrated within this thread.

The problem with Shades' characterization is that it suggests that the apologists are at odds with the prophets. The apologists are Internet Mormons and the prophets are Chapel Mormons. That simply will not do. The entire construct must be dismissed as a false dichotomy bearing no resemblance to anything in reality.

Once Scott Lloyd re-framed the dichotomy so that the apologists and prophets could be classified on the same side as "Orthodox Mormons," then suddenly we are allowed to acknowledge that a difference in approaches to Mormon belief does in fact exist, and to discuss the best ways to deal with our poor, lazy, ignorant, folk Mormon brethren.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Sophocles

[selek1]

I love how sarcasm is used.

I'm sorry- I wasn't aware that that privelege was reserved for your exclusive use.

An internet mormon doesn't describe every mormon on the internet anymore then a tree hugger only describes people who actually hug trees.

Thank you for finally admitting that the categories, as such, are arbitrary, and therefore, meaningless.

It is a metaphor

Incorrect. It is a slander. There is an unsubtle distinction between the two.

...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.

This is called "begging the question". Your assertion is a neatly-packaged poison pill whose only justification is its own declaration.

Unfortunately, your assertions do not become true simply because you insist on repeating them.

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.

Strike Two. Your assertion is simply more of the same.

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.

And this is not (despite your assertion) an "either/or" proposition, let alone one that can be pigeon-holed into neat little cubbies for the delectation of the smug, holier-than-thou, and condescending.

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

One can only assume that you lump yourself in amongst the "enlightened" elite. But then again, one must also wonder where you came up with these "numbers"...

It goes without saying that Latter-day Saints (just as with any other population in the millions) will cover an entire spectrum of faithfulness, education, enthusiasm, "awareness" and "interest" in so-called "historical" issues and/or elements of "higher" theology.

Such variation is only to be expected in so large a population comprised entirely of (essentially) volunteers.

To attempt to divide a vast spectrum into two easily demonized categories for polemical purposes is dishonest on its face. To do so for polemical (or self-aggrandizing purposes) or "to protect" the "unenlightened" is the height of condescension and demagoguery.

Is that better.

No- it is still an arbitrary and condescending division made for polemical purposes.

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.

Or in English, "Please accept my intellectual conceits so that I can move on to the next step in my polemic."

You have asserted, rather than established the alleged dichotomy. Unless and until you can provide evidence to support your contention, we are under no obligation to play along.

Edited May 29, 2012 by selek1

[Scott Lloyd]

Several years ago Scott Lloyd denounced the Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy, while simultaneously admitting that he basically sees the same thing Cinepro has described in this thread.

What Sophocles and his fellow inmates of the Trailer Park™ fail to point out is that Scott Lloyd long ago abandoned as untenable this suggestion, which was never more than thinking out loud in the first place.

Rest assured that Scott Lloyd holds firmly with those who view the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon false dichotomy as nothing more than a rhetorical gimmick.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

You are taking my use of the words immature and naive as mean spirited... they are not. One who is unaware of basics facts as Joseph used a seer stone in a hat, or there are multiple varrying first vision accounts, or that joseph didn't have the plates out for translation, or that he was sealed to other married women.... leaves me saying their knowledge of those things is naive or immature. I do not know another word to use. To me a "chapel mormon" is still in this infantile stage of understanding.

When I use these terms I am not talking about levels of testimony or faith simply a gained amount of information.

[Bob Crockett]

You are taking my use of the words immature and naive as mean spirited... they are not. One who is unaware of basics facts as Joseph used a seer stone in a hat, or there are multiple varrying first vision accounts, or that joseph didn't have the plates out for translation, or that he was sealed to other married women.... leaves me saying their knowledge of those things is naive or immature. I do not know another word to use. To me a "chapel mormon" is still in this infantile stage of understanding.

When I use these terms I am not talking about levels of testimony or faith simply a gained amount of information.

I learned about everything you mention in your parade of horribles in my seminary class as a freshman, except the part about being sealed to married women.

The way I look at it is that very little need be known about the saving ordinances, other than that Jesus is Lord, before there is sufficient information to be baptized. I read Philips' conversation with the eunuch as embracing very little information other than about Jesus Christ.

Your criticisms of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie are contrary to reverence shown them by the Brethren in conference talks as well as manuals. I again ask you to point me to some reference to support your assertion from the Brethren to agree with your assertion that they have led a whole generation astray.

I'm really surprised at your posts. You teach religion at the university level and you are a bishop. Yet, the framework which supports the Institute program and its teachings seem to be rather elusive in your posts. Do you minister to your congregation and teach at the university as an anonymous person?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[selek1]

You are taking my use of the words immature and naive as mean spirited... they are not.

On the contrary, I take issue with them because they are arbitrary, condescending, and inaccurate.

As I well know, one need not be "mean-spirited" to come across as a pompous ***.

One who is unaware of basics facts as Joseph used a seer stone in a hat, or there are multiple varrying first vision accounts, or that joseph didn't have the plates out for translation, or that he was sealed to other married women.... leaves me saying their knowledge of those things is naive or immature.

I am inclined to agree that their level of knowledge of the "historical" issues is low. I am far more reluctant, however, to suggest that their growth is "stunted", "retarded", or "infantile".

There are many among these who are far better Saints than you or I, and who are far more assured of the Celestial Kingdom than either of us. It is therefore inappropriate to lump them into a category, let alone to condescend to them.

When I use these terms I am not talking about levels of testimony or faith simply a gained amount of information.

And yet you are not qualified to judge them on their "amount of information", let alone to imply a divide or dichotomy between those who "enlightened" and "unenlightened" over minutia that is irrelevant to the cause of salvation.

[DBMormon]

I love how when one disagrees here people see the worst in them. No wonder people leave in droves when they encounter difficult issues, very few of you are patient or kind enough to kindly walk them through anything. I am happy to have someone explain why this dichotomy doesn't work. but frankly it does. There is a gigantic lag between all the factual info we have on who, what, where, when, our church has accomplished all that it has and yet majority of members don't even know what Joseph used a seer stone from his town seer days which they don't know either, to translate the plates (without the plates even being there). But wait.... swipe of the magic cape and an abra cadabra... and waalaah.... that is not important... no reason to correct that, do not tell someone that, it might hurt their testimony. the majority of those who know have found these answers by making an effort to be more informed which usually shows it self in the internet.

Sorry.... but that doesn't work for me. If joseph didn't use the urim and thummim (the tools stored with the plates specifically for this purpose) then start telling the story in a way using words that do not have double meanings (oh but you must understand the urim and thummim can be the seer stone too, or we can just call them interpreters so no one knows as we transition from one tool to another without telling them he is no longer using the instraments he found with the plates).

If we never tell people he was a town seer and used a seer stone. and we skip right to him finding the urim and thummim, what tool do we expect members to think of when we say urim and thummim or interperters?

Too many members don't even know the basics because they see the church as the place that imparts all truth and no one else is to be trusted and yet it is only by looking outside the church that one can learn all the factual information that gives the background to the very basic and at time distorted story we get at church

Anyway - I am done.... obviously we would rather ridicule and bully people into a corner then kindly see if there is common ground to work with.

From the day one when I came on here - I have been accused of everything from anti-mormon to internet troll. very few of you took me at face value and if I ever present an issue from the vantage of questioning, everyone pounces and tries to belittle and accuse.

MODs feel free to close the thread if you wish, either way - I won't be commenting again in this thread

[Bob Crockett]

From the day one when I came on here - I have been accused of everything from anti-mormon to internet troll. very few of you took me at face value and if I ever present an issue from the vantage of questioning, everyone pounces and tries to belittle and accuse.

I think my only observation is that perhaps you should disqualify yourself from teaching religion at the university level (I assume you're teaching Institute classes) because you seem to be missing some essentials in theology and doctrine. I mean, do you really read and study the Institute material? Do you have any books on your shelf which deal with Church history, and if so, what?

[selek1]

I am happy to have someone explain why this dichotomy doesn't work. but frankly it does. There is a gigantic lag between all the factual info we have on who, what, where, when, our church has accomplished all that it has and yet majority of members don't even know what Joseph used a seer stone from his town seer days which they don't know either, to translate the plates (without the plates even being there).

Repeating the mantra doesn't make it any more true.

Do you have any factual, objective evidence about what "the majority" know or don't know? Or are you merely assuming because it suits your agenda to do so?

But wait.... swipe of the magic cape and an abra cadabra... and waalaah.... that is not important... no reason to correct that, do not tell someone that, it might hurt their testimony. the majority of those who know have found these answers by making an effort to be more informed which usually shows it self in the internet.

You "love" the sacrasm and when people assume the worst- but are resorting to both in the statement above,

Contrary to your belly full of bilge, no one here has advocated for "hiding the truth" or "keeping people in the dark".

That's YOUR invention, not ours.

If we cannot trust you to be true and accurate with what we are saying while we are standing right here, why should we trust you to be true and accurate in your assertions about Latter-day Saints in general?

Sorry.... but that doesn't work for me. If joseph didn't use the urim and thummim (the tools stored with the plates specifically for this purpose) then start telling the story in a way using words that do not have double meanings (oh but you must understand the urim and thummim can be the seer stone too, or we can just call them interpreters so no one knows as we transition from one tool to another without telling them he is no longer using the instraments he found with the plates).

Ah..the old tried and trite "the Church misled me because they didn't offer me a doctorate level course in anti-Mormon criticisms during Sunday School."

Too many members don't even know the basics because they see the church as the place that imparts all truth and no one else is to be trusted and yet it is only by looking outside the church that one can learn all the factual information that gives the background to the very basic and at time distorted story we get at church

More of the same. This petulant whine has been vomited up by anti-Mormons for over a century now.

And it's every bit as manure-pile fresh as on the day the can was opened.

Anyway - I am done.... obviously we would rather ridicule and bully people into a corner then kindly see if there is common ground to work with.

Or in English, "You won't play the game by my rules, so I'm taking my ball and going home."

You asked us what we thought about a particular (discredited) meme, and then ran roughshod over our explanations in an attempt to show 1) why we are wrong and 2) that the Church is failing its members.

When we fail to fall in line and genuflect before your brilliance, you accuse us of bullying,

You demand we respect your assertion and position, but have shown zero willingness to reciprocate.

I'm sorry, but as a thinking, reasoning Latter-day Saint, I will not be railroaded into accepting your assertions just because you say so.

From the day one when I came on here - I have been accused of everything from anti-mormon to internet troll. very few of you took me at face value and if I ever present an issue from the vantage of questioning, everyone pounces and tries to belittle and accuse.

From your very first post, your abrasiveness and contentiousness have given us reason to be suspicious. Your insistence on dogmatic repetition of your talking points and stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the validity of other viewpoints has undercut your credibility at every turn.

You asked what we thought about the "intenet versus chapel Mormon" meme.

We told you- in no uncertain terms.

You ignored all of the criticisms we offered, and pressed ahead as though the meme were accepted fact, rather than a hateful polemical distraction.

When we asked for proof of your assertions, you offered a generalized condemnation that Mormons are ignorant of history (and implied that you were among the "enlightened" few).

While we acknowledge that there are differences in the level of historical knowledge between individual Saints, we categorically deny your attempt to divide us into two camps for your ideological delectation.

We refuse to allow you the privilege of arbitrarily categorizing our population in order to advance your agenda.

If that's a deal breaker for you, the problem is yours, not ours.

Edited May 29, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

I love how when one disagrees here people see the worst in them. No wonder people leave in droves when they encounter difficult issues, very few of you are patient or kind enough to kindly walk them through anything. I am happy to have someone explain why this dichotomy doesn't work. but frankly it does. There is a gigantic lag between all the factual info we have on who, what, where, when, our church has accomplished all that it has and yet majority of members don't even know what Joseph used a seer stone from his town seer days which they don't know either, to translate the plates (without the plates even being there). But wait.... swipe of the magic cape and an abra cadabra... and waalaah.... that is not important... no reason to correct that, do not tell someone that, it might hurt their testimony. the majority of those who know have found these answers by making an effort to be more informed which usually shows it self in the internet.

Sorry.... but that doesn't work for me. If joseph didn't use the urim and thummim (the tools stored with the plates specifically for this purpose) then start telling the story in a way using words that do not have double meanings (oh but you must understand the urim and thummim can be the seer stone too, or we can just call them interpreters so no one knows as we transition from one tool to another without telling them he is no longer using the instraments he found with the plates).

If we never tell people he was a town seer and used a seer stone. and we skip right to him finding the urim and thummim, what tool do we expect members to think of when we say urim and thummim or interperters?

Too many members don't even know the basics because they see the church as the place that imparts all truth and no one else is to be trusted and yet it is only by looking outside the church that one can learn all the factual information that gives the background to the very basic and at time distorted story we get at church

Anyway - I am done.... obviously we would rather ridicule and bully people into a corner then kindly see if there is common ground to work with.

From the day one when I came on here - I have been accused of everything from anti-mormon to internet troll. very few of you took me at face value and if I ever present an issue from the vantage of questioning, everyone pounces and tries to belittle and accuse.

MODs feel free to close the thread if you wish, either way - I won't be commenting again in this thread

What are the difficult issues? There is only one issue, Is it true. You can not know if it is true by how he translated or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A knowledge of its truthfulness comes from personal revelation. Personal revelation does not come while you are debating where the hill Cumorah is or what Nephite swords were made of. Personal revelations comes when you are praying about the atonement or the saving ordinances.

The factual evidence is the gospel was restored by the gift and power of God. All else is peripheral. If you don't have a testimony of that then the peripheral becomes stumbling blocks.

Again the basics are The atonement and the saving ordinances. Historicity is not basics. What kind of seer stone he used or if he even used one is nothing but something to divert attention from the basics.

I have been on the internet several years now and I have looked at some if these issues quite extensively and I can still say with some degree of certainty they are not the basics. Fun to examine and if viewed in a larger context quite favorable toward church truth claims.

You all get lost in the woods and fail to see the forest because of too many trees.

[Sophocles]

What Sophocles and his fellow inmates of the Trailer Park™ fail to point out is that Scott Lloyd long ago abandoned as untenable this suggestion, which was never more than thinking out loud in the first place.

Rest assured that Scott Lloyd holds firmly with those who view the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon false dichotomy as nothing more than a rhetorical gimmick.

My apologies. I must have missed where you abandoned that line of thinking. I certainly won't hold you to it.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to pass the word along to my fellow inmates of the Trailer Park (is that just a mixed metaphor, or am I missing the joke?) who have been making the same mistake. Only I'm not aware of anyone else mentioning it. Who besides me has committed this blunder recently?