Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[Lightbearer]

Cinepro - As a Sunday School Teacher and having the critical view of the church as you do (went back and looked at the posts again) how do you approach teaching it. D you stay on the Church approved teach the basics, or do you try to share better historical info and spend time correcting non doctrinal statements by previous leaders?

I can't help but shudder when I read this especially from someone in a teaching position in the Church. It is not the job of a Sunday School teacher to come up with their own doctrine, or to "steady the ark" but to teach the approved curriculum and teach it by the spirit of the Lord not by men's learning or wisdom.

I could not help but think of this quote while reviewing some of the comments of this thread:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Section Four 1839-42, p.156) "I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

Please do not take this wrong, I am not branding anyone an apostate, but I do pause and think when I see some who feel they are more enlightened than the leaders of the Church and must "correct" them.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that being one with the Spirit is the only way to the truth. As for which First Presidency and Quorm of the Twelve, I would say when in doubt the CURRENT leadership, because that is the one we will be judged by. Although I do not believe there are any contradictions which you imply with past presidencies. But the most recent would be that which applies to us today. For example I would not follow the teaching on the doctrine of plural marriage from Brigham Young's presidency because in light of President Woodruff's revelation the original teaching does not apply. It is what President Monson teaches today that counts not what dead prophets taught (only in where they agree with what God reveals to the Prophet TODAY). So I think the "theory" is rather practicalbe and no one need be confused and pit the prophets of the past against those of our day.

I don't disagree, it's just that don't think that every statement ever made can be reconciled with every other statement ever made and it is clear that the General Authorities don't think so either.

It is just a fact that there is dissonance there, and we have to deal with it one way or another. I don't think that is a bad thing- just a fact. It's part of earth life, and taking it all on faith. We need to be guided ultimately by the spirit or else there's no reason to believe anything any prophet has ever said anyway- because he could be a false prophet.

The only way to know is by the spirit. Absent that, as the world sees it, they become just a group of old men who sometimes agree and sometimes do not, and change doctrine according to what is popular at the moment. Having seen it that way before in my life, I find it very easy to go back to that way of thinking until the spirit spins me around and sets me straight again.

[mfbukowski]

I find the idea of cinepro "correcting" the GA's less than comforting as well.

[DBMormon]

Please do not take this wrong, I am not branding anyone an apostate, but I do pause and think when I see some who feel they are more enlightened than the leaders of the Church and must "correct" them.

I am not saying one should do that, just asking Cinepro his methods. Me personally, I do think we need to let people know they have some flexibility in what they believe but I try never to let my shelf of unanswered issues or my personal theories to take over a class

[KevinG]

reelmormon has caught himself in his own trap. Being convinced of the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy he cannot conceive of a Saint like Cinepro who pokes fun a LDS foibles and culture and yet retains a faithful and active membership including teaching other Saints on Sunday.

I hope this helps put to bed the silly notion that there is such a dichotomy.

Edited June 4, 2012 by KevinG

[Log]

reelmormon has not caught himself in his own trap.

I agree that he has not. There is no trap here. "Chapel" vs. "internet" are descriptive categories which some find useful when pondering where LDS posters are coming from.

Why would you believe Reel was trying to spring a trap on someone?

I hope this helps put to bed the silly notion that there is such a dichotomy.

In looking at the evidence, I cannot help but arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Incidentally, Cinepro is an "internet" Mormon. He's been pretty open in describing himself as one.

[cinepro]

Incidentally, Cinepro is an "internet" Mormon. He's been pretty open in describing himself as one.

Perhaps, but I teach Sunday School as a Chapel Mormon.

[The Nehor]

I've been told I'm both. Can anyone clear up which one I am?

[DBMormon]

So, Cinepro you going to answer my question in depth?

Also question for the group - should we be outspoken in correcting members false ideas such as Catholic church = great and abominable church, Earth can only be 6,000 years old, Evolution has to be false when members make these types of statements in class?

Obviously it must be done with cooth and tact but should it be done at all?

Or are you of the opinion to leave it alone and let people go along belieiving those things?

I just worry about newer members in the room internalizing those things like I did and that got me in trouble later on.

[cinepro]

So, Cinepro you going to answer my question in depth?

I don't know what your question is. I teach what the manuals teach, as well as what is found in current Church publications.

I'll only go "off manual" if a class member brings something up (which, all things considered, is pretty rare).

For Elder's Quorum (I teach 18-year old SS and EQ), I'm a little broader in my lessons, but I don't think I've ever taught anything that couldn't be found in a current Church publication. I'll start my lessons with four or five trivia questions about the topic of the lessons, and some of these might be considered "off manual", but they're usually very well received. For example, in the recent lesson on Temples, here were my trivia questions:

1. Are there more temples inside the USA, or outside the USA?
   
2. What happened to the Nauvoo Temple after the Saints left Nauvoo?
   
3. What’s the oldest operating Temple in the Church?
   
4. As smaller temples were designed in the late 1990’s, it was decided to have a white Angel Moroni statue instead of gold. Only one Temple was actually dedicated with a white Angel Moroni. Which one was it?
   
5. Which Temple(s) still present the Temple ceremony using live actors instead of on film?
   

Here were my trivia questions for the lesson on Joseph Smith:

1. Where was the first international mission of the Church?

2. Did Joseph Smith have any daughters that survived childhood?

3. Why was Joseph Smith in jail in Carthage?

4. When Joseph Smith died, he fell from the window of Carthage Jail. Why were there no bars on the window?

Also question for the group - should we be outspoken in correcting members false ideas such as Catholic church = great and abominable church, Earth can only be 6,000 years old, Evolution has to be false when members make these types of statements in class?

Obviously it must be done with cooth and tact but should it be done at all?

Or are you of the opinion to leave it alone and let people go along belieiving those things?

I just worry about newer members in the room internalizing those things like I did and that got me in trouble later on.

If it's in the manual, teach it. If it isn't, and it's false or speculative, point it out and move on.

Edited June 3, 2012 by cinepro

[volgadon]

What is the answer to the white Moroni question, none?

[mfbukowski]

So, Cinepro you going to answer my question in depth?

Also question for the group - should we be outspoken in correcting members false ideas such as Catholic church = great and abominable church, Earth can only be 6,000 years old, Evolution has to be false when members make these types of statements in class?

Obviously it must be done with cooth and tact but should it be done at all?

Or are you of the opinion to leave it alone and let people go along belieiving those things?

I just worry about newer members in the room internalizing those things like I did and that got me in trouble later on.

The problem of course here is does anyone KNOW absolutely positively without any possibility of a doubt that the earth is NOT 6000 years old, or that evolution is false, or true for that matter? That the earth through some miraculous event was NOT covered completely by water? How could one know anything absolutely ? You can't.

So who am I to tell someone they are WRONG? I personally believe in a form of evolution and that the flood was local but do I KNOW any of these?

No, I don't. God could have done it precisely the way the bible says, I just don't think he did, and I see no need for him to have done so for me to understand the gospel as I do.

So who am I to "correct" anyone on their beliefs?

[zerinus]

I've been told I'm both. Can anyone clear up which one I am?

LOL! That is a good one.

[volgadon]

Perhaps, but I teach Sunday School as a Chapel Mormon.

A Janus Mormon!

[mfbukowski]

A Janus Mormon!

[DBMormon]

The problem of course here is does anyone KNOW absolutely positively without any possibility of a doubt that the earth is NOT 6000 years old, or that evolution is false, or true for that matter? That the earth through some miraculous event was NOT covered completely by water? How could one know anything absolutely ? You can't.

I am not saying tell them they are wrong. But they are forcing new members into a corner to accept it as absolute truth. I would say something for example in regards to Evolution - "While many members and some leaders have speculated about evolution the first presidency has published two known statemments on the issue both stating the church's neutrality on it and their focus on the saving principles of the gospel." There you allowed people to believe both ways and not feel forced into a belief the church doesn't hold to begin with.

Edited June 3, 2012 by reelmormon

[zerinus]

I am not saying tell them they are wrong. But they are forcing new members into a corner to accept it as absolute truth. I would say something for example in regards to Evolution - "While many members and some leaders have speculated about evolution the first presidency has published two known statemments on the issue both stating the church's neutrality on it and their focus on the saving principles of the gospel." There you allowed people to believe both ways and not feel forced into a belief the church doesn't hold to begin with.

Actually it is not true that the First Presidency are nuteral over the issue. According to one FP statement discussed on this board some time go, it was made clear that they don't accept organic evolution to be a valid principle.

Edited June 3, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

I am not saying tell them they are wrong.

Also question for the group - should we be outspoken in correcting members false ideas such as Catholic church = great and abominable church, Earth can only be 6,000 years old, Evolution has to be false when members make these types of statements in class?

Sure sounds like it. "Correcting false ideas", kind of sounds like saying they are wrong, doesn't it?

[mfbukowski]

Actually it is not true that the First Presidency are nuteral over the issue. According to one FP statement discussed on this board some time go, it was made clear that they don't accept organic evolution to be a valid principle.

As I recall that was about the universe coming about by chance and the Big Bang. What was being argued against was that it all was by chance, and not divine direction.

The data for a God-planned unfolding of species over time looks identical to the data for godless evolution which proceed by chance mutation, only the interpretation of the data is different, but of course there is an incredibly huge difference in spiritual understanding between the two views.

But unfortunately, science always takes the godless view because that is what it does as a methodology.

[zerinus]

As I recall that was about the universe coming about by chance and the Big Bang. What was being argued against was that it all was by chance, and not divine direction.

Here is the quote:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. Source.

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

The problem of course here is does anyone KNOW absolutely positively without any possibility of a doubt that the earth is NOT 6000 years old, or that evolution is false, or true for that matter? That the earth through some miraculous event was NOT covered completely by water? How could one know anything absolutely ? You can't.

So who am I to tell someone they are WRONG? I personally believe in a form of evolution and that the flood was local but do I KNOW any of these?

No, I don't. God could have done it precisely the way the bible says, I just don't think he did, and I see no need for him to have done so for me to understand the gospel as I do.

So who am I to "correct" anyone on their beliefs?

Well we do know it is at least 6000 years old.

Evolution can be dismissed with a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

At least in theory you and I could be wrong, and life is just the production of a highly complex computer algorithm AKA The Matrix, or Total Recall, or even the dreams of a butterfly. But I don't believe so.

Agreed

Anyone can believe anything thing they want. However for us that are in the reality based community. Not so much.

[DBMormon]

not saying they are wrong, just we don't know if they are right.

[cinepro]

What is the answer to the white Moroni question, none?

Monticello, UT.

Edited June 3, 2012 by cinepro

[volgadon]

Monticello, UT.

http://www.flickr.co...ion/5135679292/

Cool, thanks! Learn something new every day.

[KevinG]

What is the answer to the white Moroni question, none?

He spent a lot of time in caves with metal plates. No sun, no tan.