Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[Senator]

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.

You feel we should all make of ourselves closet dissenters? That is the epitome of disengenuousness.

[Senator]

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

Is this pertaining to the general membership, and/or general authorities?

Do you also cherish diversity in scientific thought?

Yes

It seems to me there is little tolerance for diversity in the scientific realms pertaining to origins.

Don't know that that's true...

CFR.......

So what?

[TruthSeeker24]

I simply believe that "Diversity" is from hell (to put it bluntly), and "Unity" is of God. It's natural that people will have different views, but the fact is that there IS "one" universal truth and doctrine, and we are all trying to seek that. Sometimes, in my strong personal opinion, its necessary to simply set aside my own personal views in favor of those views that come from people who lived in such a manner that they were able to see Christ face to face. For example, I of myself do not agree with a lot of things Brigham Young taught, but because he was righteous enough to see Christ, you bet I choose to put my own feelings aside in favor of his. Does that mean I can't think for myself? No, not at all. It means that I have made the decision by reasoning that I can be easily mislead in regards to truth, and my biggest chance of success is to follow in the footsteps of those who were righteous enough to see the heavens opened to their view. I believe Diversity is a modern adage that Satan himself is very pleased with.

[Senator]

I simply believe that "Diversity" is from hell (to put it bluntly), and "Unity" is of God.

May I suggest the word you are looking for between the quotes is rebellion, not diversity. They are not synonymous.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Senator

[cinepro]

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

And they do so no longer.

If ye are not one, ye are not mine.

All it takes to ruin a discussion about whether there is a meaningful difference between Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons is for a Chapel Mormon to show up and take exception to what an Internet Mormon has said.

[cinepro]

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.

That's an interesting idea, and I suspect you're right.

I also suspect it has something to do with Correlation, which teaches us that there is one "pure doctrine", and the Correlated version is it.

[Log]

The "chapel" Mormon acts according to the maxim that it is their province to echo the Brethren or remain silent. The "internet" Mormon does not.

I am impressed by TruthSeeker24, who is not, to my knowledge, LDS.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Log

[TrespassersW]

The biggest problem I have with the labels "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" is that the meanings seem to have evolved a bit since their original presentation. These days I never know quite what someone means by the terms without detailed explanation. So, as far as concisely describing a concept, I think they're pretty useless. You're probably better off just describing the concept yourself and avoiding the baggage these vocabulary terms bring along.

That being said, I'll admit there was a time not too long ago that I subscribed to a similar dichotomy. I believed that there were two types of Mormons:

Group A - Those who paid attention to criticisms against the church and were familiar with the responses to them.

Group B - Those who did not pay attention to criticisms against the church and had no interest in doing so.

I imagined that Group A was a very small portion of the membership and would generally be much better informed about current LDS scholarship.

I imagined that Group B represented the vast majority of the membership and were largely ignorant of current LDS scholarship.

Then, a few years back, I was called to teach a primary class on the Book of Mormon. I thought I'd pique their interest by bringing up some modern thinking about these things and was shocked to find the virtually everyone in the class had not only already heard what I tried to teach them, but were already bored with it. Since then, I've had much the same experience teaching Elder's quorum.

I've been forced to revise my opinion. I've had to conclude that 1) either Group A is not nearly as small a portion as I had supposed, or 2) Group B is not nearly as ignorant as I imagined.

[TruthSeeker24]

The "chapel" Mormon acts according to the maxim that it is their province to echo the Brethren or remain silent. The "internet" Mormon does not.

I am impressed by TruthSeeker24, who is not, to my knowledge, LDS.

Thank you, Log. Though I am LDS, just not under the views of most people here.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yes, but you are not LDS- ie not a follower of the church headed by Thomas S Monson.

I think such comments should be "flagged" as such for readers who may not know that blind obedience is not a part of the "mainstream" LDS position.

[TruthSeeker24]

Yes, but you are not LDS- ie not a follower of the church headed by Thomas S Monson.

I think such comments should be "flagged" as such for readers who may not know that blind obedience is not a part of the "mainstream" LDS position.

As far as I know, I have made it perfectly clear to others that I'm fundamentalist. I'm also confident that the very few people on here who actually are NOT Mormon are very well aware that Mormons don't believe in blind obedience. Though from what I see since being here, this site is already over 90% LDS to begin with.

That being said, I don't want to mislead anyone. So if this needs to be flagged in order to protect the identity of the LDS Church, then I won't be offended by any means.

Edited May 30, 2012 by TruthSeeker24

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think the importance of this factor is often totally overlooked- I studied Willam James and related philosophical positions in graduate school and then found the church. In fact, I chose a graduate school specifically to study process philosophy before I even knew what a "Mormon" was, much less that the church is about as close to a "church of process theology" as one can get unless maybe the "New Church". http://www.newchurch.org/

I am about as far from being a cultural Mormon as one can be, while still being a total TBM. And I feel that difference every day of my life. I think differently than just about every Mormon I know.

[mfbukowski]

The strength of the church is in its diversity.

Totally agree.

[Calm]

The biggest problem I have with the labels "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" is that the meanings seem to have evolved a bit since their original presentation. These days I never know quite what someone means by the terms without detailed explanation. So, as far as concisely describing a concept, I think they're pretty useless. You're probably better off just describing the concept yourself and avoiding the baggage these vocabulary terms bring along.

Well observed.

[cinepro]

The biggest problem I have with the labels "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" is that the meanings seem to have evolved a bit since their original presentation. These days I never know quite what someone means by the terms without detailed explanation. So, as far as concisely describing a concept, I think they're pretty useless. You're probably better off just describing the concept yourself and avoiding the baggage these vocabulary terms bring along.

The practical application for me is that when discussing a teaching or doctrine with a Chapel Mormon, the conversation is usually over when one of us quotes scripture or Church publications.

With an Internet Mormon, that usually means the conversation's just getting started...

[TrespassersW]

The practical application for me is that when discussing a teaching or doctrine with a Chapel Mormon, the conversation is usually over when one of us quotes scripture or Church publications.

With an Internet Mormon, that usually means the conversation's just getting started...

Oh, there are certainly those who switch off their thinkers once an authority has spoken. And there are those who do not.

I don't see this as an uniquely Mormon characteristic. Or even uniquely religious.

And I don't see that the words "Internet" and "Chapel" are the best labels to distinguish such people.

[ERayR]

Is this pertaining to the general membership, and/or general authorities?

Yes

Don't know that that's true...

CFR.......

So what?

Yes, However, I suspect you are of the illusion that all that is spoken in general conference is doctrine. It is not.

As for your CFR just espouse guided evolution and see what happens.

Now back to topic

[Benjamin McGuire]

There is always this underlying irony in these discussions about unity. Those who are arguing for the importance of not disagreeing are really using this idea as a front - as the proverbial club so to speak, to beat the rest us of over the head. If you don't agree with my interpretation (they say), then you aren't in unity with the leaders of the church. The rest of us are apparently all closet apostates who should (we are told) simply stay in the closet. Of course, when it is the leaders who disagree with each other (which now happens from time to time and has happened in the past) then it is best to simply hide it. Or deny that it happens. Or downplay that it did happen. But this is all really just a front - a posture. Because the leaders themselves don't demand this sort of approach, and in general they seem to disagree with it (admitting that they can be wrong and so on). Is this simply a passive way of arguing for an interpretation?

Ben M.

[mfbukowski]

There is always this underlying irony in these discussions about unity. Those who are arguing for the importance of not disagreeing are really using this idea as a front - as the proverbial club so to speak, to beat the rest us of over the head. If you don't agree with my interpretation (they say), then you aren't in unity with the leaders of the church. The rest of us are apparently all closet apostates who should (we are told) simply stay in the closet. Of course, when it is the leaders who disagree with each other (which now happens from time to time and has happened in the past) then it is best to simply hide it. Or deny that it happens. Or downplay that it did happen. But this is all really just a front - a posture. Because the leaders themselves don't demand this sort of approach, and in general they seem to disagree with it (admitting that they can be wrong and so on). Is this simply a passive way of arguing for an interpretation?

Ben M.

IMO, yes.

[Lightbearer]

I wonder if Paul the Apostle would call himself a "Chapel Mormon" or an "Internet Mormon" with the comments on this thread:

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 1:10)

I am not sure of what is meant in this thread by "diversity" (unless it be race or culture) but as far as the Gospel of Christ goes it ought to be unity with the First Presidency and the Twelve we as LDS should be seeking.

[wenglund]

The "Internet/Chapel Mormon" dichotomy is a test of critical thinking skills. If one views the dichotomy as sound and valid , they have failed the test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I wonder if Paul the Apostle would call himself a "Chapel Mormon" or an "Internet Mormon" with the comments on this thread:

I am not sure of what is meant in this thread by "diversity" (unless it be race or culture) but as far as the Gospel of Christ goes it ought to be unity with the First Presidency and the Twelve we as LDS should be seeking.

That's nice in theory, but unfortunately, the problem becomes WHICH of the FP or Q of 12, or which of the statements they have collectively expressed in the past, since they themselves at times do not appear unified, especially not over a period of time, hence the whole question of "doctrine" as addressed by Elder Christofferson in this last conference. He cited two different statements by Brigham Young, one of which Bro Brigham reversed himself on in a matter of hours.

Ultimately, I would say that the unity we need to have, is being one with the Spirit, and that was indeed the overall theme of the talk

Edited May 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Yep]

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

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

My Opinion -

The Church has it's "Pharisees and Sadducees."

I would define/describe the two groups differently. What you are terming "Internet Mormon" is probably not so much a gray area view as a very strict view of what constitutes Church Doctrine and what is Church tradition.

I also hold the opinion that the differences in views/beliefs are more commonly on issues where there is little official doctrine on the subject. This results in the "Chapel Mormon" taking as fact/doctrine ideas and traditions that have been taught or discussed by those perceived as authorities.

Given this, I think that your "Chapel Mormons" are closer to what in other religions would be laity. Laity, for the purpose of this discussion, in the LDS Church are those that have not been educated or have not educated themselves in the doctrine to the extent that others have. Thus, "Internet Mormons" are the "Pharisees and Sadducees." The Church has simply not had the time for these groups to settle into as rigid definitions as those of the Jews had, and perhaps there will be more than just two groups when they do settle. I would state that I do not believe that the Apostles and Prophet fall into these groups and perhaps even the Seventy would not either. IMO, the Church doesn't "interpret" which is what the Pharisees and Sadducees did.

[selek1]

My Opinion -

The Church has it's "Pharisees and Sadducees."

I would define/describe the two groups differently. What you are terming "Internet Mormon" is probably not so much a gray area view as a very strict view of what constitutes Church Doctrine and what is Church tradition.

I also hold the opinion that the differences in views/beliefs are more commonly on issues where there is little official doctrine on the subject. This results in the "Chapel Mormon" taking as fact/doctrine ideas and traditions that have been taught or discussed by those perceived as authorities.

Given this, I think that your "Chapel Mormons" are closer to what in other religions would be laity. Laity, for the purpose of this discussion, in the LDS Church are those that have not been educated or have not educated themselves in the doctrine to the extent that others have. Thus, "Internet Mormons" are the "Pharisees and Sadducees." The Church has simply not had the time for these groups to settle into as rigid definitions as those of the Jews had, and perhaps there will be more than just two groups when they do settle. I would state that I do not believe that the Apostles and Prophet fall into these groups and perhaps even the Seventy would not either. IMO, the Church doesn't "interpret" which is what the Pharisees and Sadducees did.

I tend to balk at the Pharisees and Sadducees characterization for a number of reasons- not the least of which is the inflammatory nature of those terms and the false dichotomy that those terms present vis-a-vis the Saints

While I concede there are some (faint) thematic similarities, the Pharisees and Sadducees were separate sects or groups within Jewish society and were (largely) the antithesis of one another. No such division actually exists within the Church.

One is not either a "Chapel Mormon" or an "Internet Mormon" because there is no clear dividing line, nor even a preponderance of belief that separates the two alleged categories, as even the most flatulent of those endorsing the categories are forced to admit.

Mormon belief is not a dichotomy nor (truly) even a spectrum of belief. Rather, we are tasked to assess each belief both on its own merits and in context of our faith as a whole- and one must decide for oneself (in cooperation with the Holy Ghost) what one believes on any particular topic.

To pretend that Latter-day Saints can be pigeon holed on one side or another of a great mythical divide is to misunderstand the very nature of being a Latter-day Saint.

To use a Hasbro metaphor, this isn't a game of Connect-Four, where all the pieces line up in neat little rows, but is rather like battleship, where victory is determined by confluences scattered all over the playing field.

[Log]

There is always this underlying irony in these discussions about unity. Those who are arguing for the importance of not disagreeing are really using this idea as a front - as the proverbial club so to speak, to beat the rest us of over the head. If you don't agree with my interpretation (they say), then you aren't in unity with the leaders of the church.

It would be ever so much more informative were you to give the name of any individual who said any such thing to you, and the post wherein they did so, so we can see how this claim that you make out to be "if you don't agree with their interpretation then you aren't in unity with the leaders of the Church" was actually worded.

I haven't seen it yet.

The rest of us are apparently all closet apostates who should (we are told) simply stay in the closet. Of course, when it is the leaders who disagree with each other (which now happens from time to time and has happened in the past) then it is best to simply hide it. Or deny that it happens. Or downplay that it did happen. But this is all really just a front - a posture. Because the leaders themselves don't demand this sort of approach, and in general they seem to disagree with it (admitting that they can be wrong and so on). Is this simply a passive way of arguing for an interpretation?

Ben M.

The Brethren have not publicly disagreed with each other for a great long while. The public controversies of the past are just that - the past. They have not stated why they no longer publicly air their doctrinal disputes - if, indeed, they have any amongst each other - but, again, the most likely reason is because they recognize that public squabbling undermines the flock's confidence in them and the Scriptures.

While you said that seemed "highly unlikely" to you, I have yet to see your "more likely" counter-thesis.

If we perceive it as our duty to safeguard the flock, then our choice in behavior and words seems clear. Interpretations don't enter into consideration. This is a matter of observable behavior, not unobservable beliefs.

In any event, if "chapel" Mormon and "internet" Mormon have any content for me, it is in this: "The 'chapel' Mormon acts according to the maxim that it is their province to echo the Brethren or remain silent. The 'internet' Mormon does not."

Edited May 31, 2012 by Log