Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[Scott Lloyd]

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

reelmormon,

Back on March 30, when you hadn't been on the board for very long, you posted the following:

Some Honest Thoughts. I think there is a change in the church occuring, one that I welcome. I believe Grace is being more widely accepted as an acceptable facet of LDS theology. I believe you will see Grace spoken of in conference to an extent where it matches more closely with Robert Millet's view then the 1999 (i think) conference talk by Elder Oaks. Also I believe your going to see some drastic measures taken in the next 2-3 years where the Church demonstrably begin to make it known outwardly that members can believe in a wide array of things (within reason) and still be faithful members. Ex: evolution, age of the earth, some parts of the scriptures based on real events but perhaps not 100% literal. example Eve being made from a rib. I think the church is going to take steps to deal with members leaving over issues that can be dealt with rather then be a line in the sand (such as Elder Marlin Jensen's recent comments). It wouldn't surprise me to see some talk in Conference allude to this movement. perhaps by Elder Holland

Regarding the portion I have bolded, I subsequently pointed out that the Church has long taught that the story of Eve being made from a rib is merely figurative. You never responded to my pointing that out, but I noticed that you never again mentioned that as an example of a thing on which the Church has been too literal or has not been straight with its members.

Could it be that the folks you characterize as "chapel Mormons" might be a few who, like you, have made an incorrect assumption about what the Church does or does not teach? that what you call "the distorted story we get at church" may, on the contrary, be a function to some degree of people not paying attention to what actually is taught at church and then blaming the church for their own incorrect understanding?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

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 not the reason that the creator of the labels gave. It may be how you define them and your intent may be to simply point out the difference between certain POVs in the Church. The creator of the labels however wanted to use the labels to describe what he saw as a schism that would eventually end up in forming two different churches.

For many of us who were there at the creation of the labels, there are good reasons we find the use of the labels inappropriate and misleading.

[mfbukowski]

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).

You are clearly begging the question by defining "chapel Mormon" as those who take these things literally, and then holding it up as a valid definition.

And if you look at what Elder Nelson really said, he was not arguing against the theory of the "Big Bang" - he was arguing against the idea that all of creation could happen randomly

"Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere," he said. "Ask yourself, 'Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?' The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions."

I personally don't know or care if the flood was global or not, but the good professor of Hebrew, I think, is not an authority on geology, and his statement is not doctrinal anyway. We do not look to BYU professors to establish church doctrine.

His opinion might actually be correct though when you actually analyze what he said- what he is arguing against is "uniformitarianism" which is actually a philosophical and metaphysical position and is not falsifiable, like many philosophical positions

In effect, he is expressing the "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" and as such, he has taken himself out of the realm of spiritual discourse in my opinion, and his comments should be evaluated accordingly.

[cinepro]

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

If you and mfbukowski are ironically trying to make my point, I thank you. You've each done in one post what I couldn't in three.

You are both ably demonstrating the mindset of the Internet Mormon. "That's not what Elder Nelson really meant! Of course he's open to the idea of the Big Bang!" "Articles that are published in the Ensign clearly stating a position that has been reiterated numerous times by the scriptures and latter day Prophets don't really reflect a doctrine of the Church!"

You both may well be right. The whole point is that there are LDS who would hear these things and believe them just as they were spoken or printed, without the added context or "understanding". That's the difference between a Chapel Mormon and and Internet Mormon.

A Chapel Mormon hears an Apostle say "Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere" in General Conference and thinks "Hmmm...I guess the scientists are wrong and there wasn't a Big Bang."

A Chapel Mormon reads "we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, ...and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets" in the Ensign and thinks "Hmmm...I guess the flood did cover the whole Earth and the scientists are wrong.

A Chapel Mormon reads that Adam was "the primal parent of our race", "the first human", and believes Adam's body wasn't the result of an evolutionary process involving countless generations of birth/death/mutation.

Frankly, I can only see two refutations to this observation:

1. Such people don't exist in the Church.

2. Such people do exist, but there isn't any meaningful difference between them and the Church members who do see these things differently.

I'm not sure which argument is being preferred in this thread. I can see the second option as a judgement call, but that hardly disputes the categories outright.

Edited May 29, 2012 by cinepro

[Grundelwalken]

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.

Yes, and each of those brethren was dealing with a different "church" at the time. Really, until the latter part of Pres. Kimball's time the church was pretty Utah/Western US centric (despite the worldwide growth) and many things were talked about from the pulpit. Since Pres. Benson we have seen a "backing off" of tangential messages and a focus more on basic doctrines. Different times require different methods. MW

(and I know some will disagree with my time-frame but that is my personal view so don't expect any CFR's). MW

[KevinG]

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

I was describing the difference between a self appointed Mormon scholar who accused Mormons of being ignorant of their history and a full time saint with a full time life. No accusing you of the same.

I have an invitation for you. Focus less on the internet side and focus more on the Chapel side. You may be amazed at what reason that gives you to believe. It will help if you don't condescend and belittle the believers who you hope to join.

[KevinG]

I love how when one disagrees here people see the worst in them.

Right back to those Mormons are mean for defending themselves against my charges.

It is soooo predictable.

[Scott Lloyd]

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!!

I still keep my old Palm TX plugged in at my bedside for times when I need it. Despite Apple's boasts that "there's an app for that," I still haven't found an app for everything I need the iOS to do.

[mfbukowski]

You both may well be right.

Thanks. That's all you need to say.

Perhaps you are beginning to understand ambiguity.

2. Such people do exist, but there isn't any meaningful difference between them and the Church members who do see these things differently.

That's pretty close I think.

BTW, I am not sure if sometimes and I agree or not. That is a continuing problem for me. It's that old ambiguity problem again.

Edited May 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I still keep my old Palm TX plugged in at my bedside for times when I need it. Despite Apple's boasts that "there's an app for that," I still haven't found an app for everything I need the iOS to do.

Don't get me started! I used to be able to program batch files in DOS, downloading information in one program format, re-formatting it for another type of program, uploading it to a third source for sorting and filtering the information and then printing labels and doing mail merge for a sales operation- and this was all without special training, (which I don't have) just a working knowledge of DOS.

I can't do any of that now with the more "modern" systems we have. Such is the nature of "progress"

[Scott Lloyd]

reelmormon,

Back on March 30, when you hadn't been on the board for very long, you posted the following:

Regarding the portion I have bolded, I subsequently pointed out that the Church has long taught that the story of Eve being made from a rib is merely figurative. You never responded to my pointing that out, but I noticed that you never again mentioned that as an example of a thing on which the Church has been too literal or has not been straight with its members.

Could it be that the folks you characterize as "chapel Mormons" might be a few who, like you, have made an incorrect assumption about what the Church does or does not teach? that what you call "the distorted story we get at church" may, on the contrary, be a function to some degree of people not paying attention to what actually is taught at church and then blaming the church for their own incorrect understanding?

reelmormon has responded to this post via personal message. I choose to reply to it publicly, though I am deleting portions that might serve to disclose reelmormon's identity.

reelmormon wrote:

I am in a ward in [deleted]. Joined in [deleted]. small ward 120 sunday attendance. None of the books I read, or any of the teachings in the manuals or any of the talks ever given in my presence ever even hinted towards this being figurative. I think I was left to believe as long as possible just like my parents with Santa Claus. I know of no direct church history other the President Hinkley and forward so if a talk was given earlier then that please feel free to point it out. I would love to know what official talk by a church leader explained that this was figurative?

Also I didn't stop posting on the thread because People disagreed but because it seems every discussion I am involved in where I disagree turns into one where people begin makeing personal comments about me. I never understand how one's argument is benefeited by slander

Here is a passage from the Old Testament Student Manual, which has been used for decades in the Church Educational System and is available for use in the home and in connection with Sunday School and other classes in the Church:

(3-12) Genesis 3:20 . “She Was the Mother of All Living”

“Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband, Adam, in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness, during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam’s rib being merely figurative. ( Moses 3:20–25 .)

“Eve was the first woman; she became the mother of the whole human race, her very name signifying ‘mother of all living.’ ( Moses 4:26 ; 1 Ne. 5:11 .) . . .

“Before the fall Eve was sealed to Adam in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, a ceremony performed by the Lord before death entered the world and therefore one destined to last forever. ( Moses 3:20–25 .) . . .

“. . . Indeed, Eve is a joint-participant with Adam in all his ministry, and will inherit jointly with him all the blessings appertaining to his high state of exaltation.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 242.)

(Bold emphasis added.)

Also, I would point out that every regular temple attender in the Church should be familiar with an explicit statement that the Genesis story of the creation of Eve is merely figurative, just as stated above.

Add on: I've stated this before on this board, but for future reference, I will not grant an advance guarantee of confidentiality to anyone who might send me a personal message. I might choose, after the fact, to keep all or a portion of the message private out of consideration for the sender, but I don't feel automatically bound to do so, be it morally, ethically or according to any rules of etiquette I subscribe to.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

Add on: I've stated this before on this board, but for future reference, I will not grant an advance guarantee of confidentiality to anyone who might send me a personal message. I might choose, after the fact, to keep all or a portion of the message private out of consideration for the sender, but I don't feel automatically bound to do so, be it morally, ethically or according to any rules of etiquette I subscribe to.

Such a warning would be a good thing to put on your profile. These posts will be hidden quickly from most visitors and people.

[Scott Lloyd]

Such a warning would be a good thing to put on your profile. These posts will be hidden quickly from most visitors and people.

In point of fact, this is a matter that very rarely comes up. In practice, I don't forsee that I would very often have the need or inclination to publish a message sent to me.

That said, the presumption of advance confidentiality in personal correspondence has never been self-evident to me, especially when the expectation is unilateral.

But your advice is good. It may be of value to put some sort of caveat emptor warning somewhere on my profile.

I won't, however, devote my sig line to it. I like what's there already. Those brief statements have been crafted to encapsulate my position on those few issues, and it is a handy thing to be able to direct readers to them when the subjects come up.

[CASteinman]

I won't, however, devote my sig line to it. I like what's there already. Those brief statements have been crafted to encapsulate my position on those few issues, and it is a handy thing to be able to direct readers to them when the subjects come up.

I like your sig lines

[Senator]

Right back to those Mormons are mean for defending themselves against my charges.

It is soooo predictable.

No, it's some Mormons can get personally offensive when defending themselve against my charges.

[KevinG]

No, it's some Mormons can get personally offensive when defending themselve against my charges.

It reminds me of when one child repeatedly pokes a sibling in the back seat of the car until the pokee gets fed up and pokes back. The poker then yells loudly in a plea for sympathy and in hopes of getting the pokee in trouble with mom and dad. Mooooooom! Jimmy poked me!

If someone is condescending and insulting they should expect to be given feedback to that effect. I don't go to critical web sites and tell everyone some psychobabble about how they are not as intelligent or informed as TBMs. This whole thread was based on nonsense and insults.

[TruthSeeker24]

I personally feel that if we have a controversial view that is out of alignment with what our Leaders teach, then we should keep it to ourselves. I'm in favor of complete uniformity and unity of belief and religious practice. Call it free-will communism if you must.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

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.

The challenge I have with this, is that, (even if it is true), it exists only as a recent phenomenon. It is a development. We have, for example, Bob Crockett talking about Mormon Doctrine - and yet, before it gets written, we don't have a Mormon Doctrine. Cinepro mentions this:

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.

But I think this is simply his being disingenuous in his desire to stir the pot. After all, we certainly have a contingent of early LDS leaders who followed one theory of their day and supported the notion of pre-Adamites. And we see supporters of evolution amongst church leaders (whether it narrowly applies to a literal Adam and Eve or not might be a separate topic). We certainly find those who opposed the notion of Young Earth creationism. And in fact, it doesn't take a lot of searching to find that these controversial topics were at one time openly debated from the pulpits by our earlier leaders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution

This kind of approach was gradually taken away. Gone were the debates, and the disagreements. And it is only in that environment that we can start to talk about Cinepro's sense of a chapel Mormon. And yet, this is only in our lifetimes - this is not some sort of historic pattern. We don't hold fast to earlier apostles theories and publications right (what about, for example, Pratt's geography of the Book of Mormon, published in the 1840s - it certainly placed Zarahemla right down there in Central America, right?). So to all those who want to suggest that apostles getting up in conference and making these kinds of pronouncements somehow have some special status, or that their comments ought to be elevated in this way is something new. We don't extend this backwards onto our apostles of earlier periods of the LDS Church. We have lost sight of the broad spectrum of beliefs amongst the leadership of the church primarily because of a movement to make their disagreements more private. And Cinepro here is more than happy to play devil's advocate - but the reality is that in my view, the majority of members of the church do not meet Cinepro's definition of a chapel Mormon. Perhaps this is the case in the area where he lives - but out in the mission field where I live, it is not the case.

Of course part of this is also the absolute issue that people who are 4th and 5th generation Mormons come to the gospel with a whole different perspective than do converts who come with an entire set of pre-existing beliefs - those beliefs don't simply go away or get tossed.

Ben M.

[Log]

We have lost sight of the broad spectrum of beliefs amongst the leadership of the church primarily because of a movement to make their disagreements more private.

Probably because the Brethren realized that a non-unified front tends to undermine the people's trust and faith in both them and the Scriptures, and thereby leads to apostasy, wherein their garments are spotted with the blood of the lost. The issue for us is whether we likewise shall be publicly unified with them, or not - and, if not, do we think we shall be made clean from the blood and sins of this generation?

TruthSeeker has it right:

I personally feel that if we have a controversial view that is out of alignment with what our Leaders teach, then we should keep it to ourselves. I'm in favor of complete uniformity and unity of belief and religious practice. Call it free-will communism if you must.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Log

[Senator]

It reminds me of when one child repeatedly pokes a sibling in the back seat of the car until the pokee gets fed up and pokes back. The poker then yells loudly in a plea for sympathy and in hopes of getting the pokee in trouble with mom and dad. Mooooooom! Jimmy poked me!

If someone is condescending and insulting they should expect to be given feedback to that effect. I don't go to critical web sites and tell everyone some psychobabble about how they are not as intelligent or informed as TBMs. This whole thread was based on nonsense and insults.

It reminds me of when one child repeatedly pokes a sibling in the back seat of the car until the pokee gets fed up and pokes back. The poker then yells loudly in a plea for sympathy and in hopes of getting the pokee in trouble with mom and dad. Mooooooom! Jimmy poked me!

Yeah, meanwhile Mom and Dad are in the front seat longing for the day when the kids finally grow up.

[Senator]

TruthSeeker has it right:

I disagree.

I cherish public diversity of thought.

The key is in how we love one another in the process.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Log writes:

Probably because the Brethren realized that a non-unified front tends to undermine the people's trust and faith in both them and the Scriptures, and thereby leads to apostasy, wherein their garments are spotted with the blood of the lost.

That seems to me to be highly unlikely. But it is good to see you speculating again.

The issue for us is whether we likewise shall be publicly unified with them, or not - and, if not, do we think we shall be made clean from the blood and sins of this generation?

This isn't the issue at all. In fact, this sounds like the notion that we don't have to think for ourselves, and that we don't have to make judgments for ourselves, and most importantly, that we don't need to have a testimony of our own (after all, the brethren have testimonies and we can simply rely on theirs, right?). It seems to me that the gospel is about just the opposite of what you state. We cannot be saved on the strength of another's testimony. And of course, as I pointed out (and you seemed to have simply skipped over), the leaders of the church have disagreed on many of these issues. When the church issues statements it generally does so by stating that the church doesn't have a formal position. This isn't a recommendation to pick and choose which leader's opinion you want to follow and then to castigate all other positions. It is an invitation to form your own opinions.

The strength of the church is in its diversity.

Ben M.

[ERayR]

If you and mfbukowski are ironically trying to make my point, I thank you. You've each done in one post what I couldn't in three.

You are both ably demonstrating the mindset of the Internet Mormon. "That's not what Elder Nelson really meant! Of course he's open to the idea of the Big Bang!" "Articles that are published in the Ensign clearly stating a position that has been reiterated numerous times by the scriptures and latter day Prophets don't really reflect a doctrine of the Church!"

You both may well be right. The whole point is that there are LDS who would hear these things and believe them just as they were spoken or printed, without the added context or "understanding". That's the difference between a Chapel Mormon and and Internet Mormon.

A Chapel Mormon hears an Apostle say "Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere" in General Conference and thinks "Hmmm...I guess the scientists are wrong and there wasn't a Big Bang."

A Chapel Mormon reads "we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, ...and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets" in the Ensign and thinks "Hmmm...I guess the flood did cover the whole Earth and the scientists are wrong.

A Chapel Mormon reads that Adam was "the primal parent of our race", "the first human", and believes Adam's body wasn't the result of an evolutionary process involving countless generations of birth/death/mutation.

Frankly, I can only see two refutations to this observation:

1. Such people don't exist in the Church.

2. Such people do exist, but there isn't any meaningful difference between them and the Church members who do see these things differently.

I'm not sure which argument is being preferred in this thread. I can see the second option as a judgement call, but that hardly disputes the categories outright.

And all this has what to do with the truthfulness of the gospel?

[Log]

That seems to me to be highly unlikely.

If you have a more likely counter-theory, feel free to propose it.

[T]he leaders of the church have disagreed on many of these issues.

And they do so no longer.

The strength of the church is in its diversity.

If ye are not one, ye are not mine.

[ERayR]

I disagree.

I cherish public diversity of thought.

The key is in how we love one another in the process.

As long as it is presented as thought and not doctrine.

Do you also cherish diversity in scientific thought? It seems to me there is little tolerance for diversity in the scientific realms pertaining to origins.