No Such Thing as Internet Mormons?

[_3DOP]

I have been around the internet LDS sites since before Dr. Shades drew the observation at ZLMB citing the distinctions between the Internet and Chapel Mormon. What I don't understand is why Internet Mormons almost always object strongly to the idea. Allow me to explain. I am Catholic and I think I am persuaded that there is in a generally similar way, a difference between "Internet" and "Chapel" Catholics. Maybe I am missing something, but I am not sure why Mormons or Catholics whether of the chapel or internet variety should object to the theory or think of it as a threat. The phenomenon has probably always existed when some Catholics and Mormons did not have access to the interent, but were nevertheless more curious, and more inclined to dig deeper into their beliefs. They were more knowledgable as a result. Nowadays, the same kind of people have the opportunity to gain more data faster through the internet (with the corresponding difficulty of categorizing the increased data as information or misinformation).

I have discussed this with a fellow Internet Catholic who many of you would know, and he pointed out to me that interestingly enough, the parallel in our own church reverses the roles. One wonders why, but it seems that generally speaking, the internet Mormon is typically liberal to progressive. The Internet Catholic is typically conservative to traditional. On the other hand, I can't speak for going to Mormon meetings but my friend has a lot of experience in that, and he says that the Chapel Mormon experience is typically conservative to traditional while the typical Chapel Catholic experience is liberal to progressive. (There are ways that traditional Catholics like myself typically also find our way to a more traditional chapel experience.) I have thought for many years that Dr. Shades' theory is both true and harmless in regards to Mormons. I am thinking that it could be applied with equal plausibility to my own church. As far as I am concerned this is not an admission that anyone is right or anyone is wrong. It just seems to be in general an observably verifiable phenomenon for those who live in both worlds.

I would be interested if anyone here strongly opposes the theory, and if so, why? Maybe I should be concerned or threatened by it for the same reason? Please tell me, what is there to be concerned about regarding the idea? Chapel Catholics usually don't hear anything about crusades and inquisitions just like Mormons don't hear much on polygamy and dark skin becoming white. But that needn't necessarily be interpreted as a fear of tackling the more difficult problems. Pastors aren't supposed to force those who aren't interested, into meaty problems on Sunday mornings. There is a reason that Jesus referred to his followers as a flock of sheep. Most sheep like to follow. They always have. For those who prefer (black sheep? heh.), there are usually in most metro areas, several alternative, and more traditional Catholic communities like mine that do bring up our current and historical problems more readily. Why? At least in part, because the good pastor knows where there is more of an interest in our faith and more of a hunger to go deeper at those parishes that are well known in the community for being a little more serious. The same people at such a parish are likely to gather at church or at someone's house for a slightly more cerebral discussion too than one might ordinarily find. Or, they might be more inclined to consult the internet.

I don't understand wards and stakes so I don't know if there are more "serious" chapels than others in the LDS landscape like there seems to be in the Catholic. In either case, it seems to me that Chapel Mormons are the same as Chapel Catholics in one important respect. In general, considering their current circumstances they are comfortable in their religion. There is nothing wrong with that. It takes one level of initiative to go to the chapel. It takes the next level to go to the internet. That isn't patting myself on the back. At a different time in my life, and with different circumstances, I would love to be merely "comfortable in my religion"). I am not proud of having wasted so many useless hours on the internet. I won't, but I could go on to discuss how I think that the internet is in the end, a lot less useful than a plain old book in your hands beside the fireplace. However, I think it is natural that in this day and age, the faith minded person who is a student, will eventually find his way to the internet. It will probably become even more of a trend as oldies like me are replaced with youngies like my kids. That is how I understand Shades' theory so far, not in terms of good or bad.

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I think I would define Internet Mormons more in terms of their actual use of Internet media than Dr. Shades does.

So, essentially, to you, an Internet Mormon is a Mormon who has used the Internet, and a Chapel Mormon is a Mormon who hasn't used the Internet?

If so, I can't see why anyone would disagree.

But, then, I am not sure what value there is in that "typology".

In the first place, I think they are more informed about Mormon history and theology than their chapel-dwelling brethren. Secondly, I think they are more likely to hold progressive theological positions, like the view that the Brethren can err when speaking in Conference or that there is revelation outside the Church. Thirdly, I think they tend to be more confident and more self-aware in dialoguing on religious subjects-- they are both more likely to feel their voice is legitimate and more likely to express themselves carefully/deliberately. And finally, I would estimate that they are more likely to be egalitarian in their understandings of gender, race, and religion, but less likely to have an egalitarian perspective on intelligence and education.

These make for interesting hypotheses. However, I wonder if they would be born out through social research? I suppose we'll just have to wait to find out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I have been around the internet LDS sites since before Dr. Shades drew the observation at ZLMB citing the distinctions between the Internet and Chapel Mormon. What I don't understand is why Internet Mormons almost always object strongly to the idea.

That is because, as previously mentioned, according to Shade's defined categories (which differs from what you suggested), several of us Mormons who have long actively participated on the internet (including at ZLMB), actually qualified under his test as Chapel Mormons--which suggested to our mind that his categorizations were flawwed.

We also objected because the terms were being fallaciously used, by Shades and others, to stereotype and dismiss apologetic claims and arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_CaliforniaKid]

Wade,

You wrote,

So, essentially, to you, an Internet Mormon is a Mormon who has used the Internet, and a Chapel Mormon is a Mormon who hasn't used the Internet?

If so, I can't see why anyone would disagree.

But, then, I am not sure what value there is in that "typology".

The "value" is simply to suggest that different media will result in different attitudes, theologies, and intellectual frameworks-- in short, to suggest that the Internet will gradually affect Mormons who use it, and in the long run may also affect the Church as a whole.

That is because, as previously mentioned, according to Shade's defined categories (which differs from what you suggested), several of us Mormons who have long actively participated on the internet (including at ZLMB), actually qualified under his test as Chapel Mormons--which suggested to our mind that his categorizations were flawwed.

Typologies tend to have exceptions. Exceptions do not necessarily make a typology invalid or useless. But when exceptions proliferate, that's when it's time to revisit the drawing board. I think there are enough exceptions to Doc. Shades' typology that it could do with some revision. But the purpose of my post was to suggest that his basic premise is theoretically sound: we should not reject the typology out of hand merely because the way the categories are defined does not seem entirely satisfying.

-Chris

[_Jason Bourne]

I have been around the internet LDS sites since before Dr. Shades drew the observation at ZLMB citing the distinctions between the Internet and Chapel Mormon. What I don't understand is why Internet Mormons almost always object strongly to the idea.

That is because, as previously mentioned, according to Shade's defined categories (which differs from what you suggested), several of us Mormons who have long actively participated on the internet (including at ZLMB), actually qualified under his test as Chapel Mormons--which suggested to our mind that his categorizations were flawwed.

We also objected because the terms were being fallaciously used, by Shades and others, to stereotype and dismiss apologetic claims and arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe there is a better term. You may be a "chapel Mormon" who likes to debate on the nett, one who holds to all the things that you were taught-that the words of the prophets mean something and most just are not their opinions; that God really was once a man and that we can be gods and that the KFD really is thought of as official doctrine; that the Church leaders really did make statements that meant something about Book of Mormon geography and that the American Indians were considered direct descendants of Lehi. Oh the list goes on. Certainly there are Chapel Mormons on the net that debate these things. But the internet Mormon seems more one that dismisses a lot, that tell us Prophets and apostles get a lot wrong, that revelation is a messy business and all the leaders really get is general stuff that keeps the ship from straying to far off course which of course most members in the pews that are active think very differently about this process.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

You wrote,

So, essentially, to you, an Internet Mormon is a Mormon who has used the Internet, and a Chapel Mormon is a Mormon who hasn't used the Internet?

If so, I can't see why anyone would disagree.

But, then, I am not sure what value there is in that "typology".

The "value" is simply to suggest that different media will result in different attitudes, theologies, and intellectual frameworks-- in short, to suggest that the Internet will gradually affect Mormons who use it, and in the long run may also affect the Church as a whole.

That is because, as previously mentioned, according to Shade's defined categories (which differs from what you suggested), several of us Mormons who have long actively participated on the internet (including at ZLMB), actually qualified under his test as Chapel Mormons--which suggested to our mind that his categorizations were flawwed.

Typologies tend to have exceptions. Exceptions do not necessarily make a typology invalid or useless. But when exceptions proliferate, that's when it's time to revisit the drawing board. I think there are enough exceptions to Doc. Shades' typology that it could do with some revision. But the purpose of my post was to suggest that his basic premise is theoretically sound: we should not reject the typology out of hand merely because the way the categories are defined does not seem entirely satisfying.

-Chris

I don't know that I or many other apologist have rejected the typology out of hand. It is just that we haven't seen a typology delinated that has been substantiated or stands up to scrutiny.

However, if you are able to clearly demonstrate the hypothises above, and in a way that shows both clear and significant differentiations between Mormon's who use the net and those that don't, and in a way that advances the interfaith dialogue, then I would be pleased to encourage, hear, and accept it.

As intimated earlier, though, my apprehension is in wanting to avoid stereotyping and usage of the typology to make unwarranted and sweeping dismissals of apologetic arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I have been around the internet LDS sites since before Dr. Shades drew the observation at ZLMB citing the distinctions between the Internet and Chapel Mormon. What I don't understand is why Internet Mormons almost always object strongly to the idea.

That is because, as previously mentioned, according to Shade's defined categories (which differs from what you suggested), several of us Mormons who have long actively participated on the internet (including at ZLMB), actually qualified under his test as Chapel Mormons--which suggested to our mind that his categorizations were flawwed.

We also objected because the terms were being fallaciously used, by Shades and others, to stereotype and dismiss apologetic claims and arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe there is a better term. You may be a "chapel Mormon" who likes to debate on the nett, one who holds to all the things that you were taught-that the words of the prophets mean something and most just are not their opinions; that God really was once a man and that we can be gods and that the KFD really is thought of as official doctrine; that the Church leaders really did make statements that meant something about Book of Mormon geography and that the American Indians were considered direct descendants of Lehi. Oh the list goes on. Certainly there are Chapel Mormons on the net that debate these things. But the internet Mormon seems more one that dismisses a lot, that tell us Prophets and apostles get a lot wrong, that revelation is a messy business and all the leaders really get is general stuff that keeps the ship from straying to far off course which of course most members in the pews that are active think very differently about this process.

So, how much does a Mormon need to dismiss, and how "messy" do they have to consider revelation, for you to consider them an "Internet Mormon" as distinguishable for a "Chapel Mormon"? I've known not a few Mormons who have yet to spend much if any time on the net, who view revelation as "messy"?

Also, what is your point in attempting to define and utilize the "chapel Mormon" and "internet Mormon" labels?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

How about that Tom Trails filmstrip episode where Tom discusses early church polyandry, blood atonement, and how Tom's skin is getting lighter every day?

Bates

That was indeed a ground breaking episode and helped pave the way for much of today's modern apologetics.

[_CaliforniaKid]

As intimated earlier, though, my apprehension is in wanting to avoid stereotyping and usage of the typology to make unwarranted and sweeping dismissals of apologetic arguments.

I'm not interested in making sweeping dismissals of apologetic arguments, and I'm frankly not sure how identifying an apologist as an "Internet Mormon" could invalidate his/her perspective, anyway. Why do you think you feel this apprehension?

[_wenglund]

As intimated earlier, though, my apprehension is in wanting to avoid stereotyping and usage of the typology to make unwarranted and sweeping dismissals of apologetic arguments.

I'm not interested in making sweeping dismissals of apologetic arguments, and I'm frankly not sure how identifying an apologist as an "Internet Mormon" could invalidate his/her perspective, anyway. Why do you think you feel this apprehension?

While I hadn't thought you would use the typology in either of those ways, my apprehesion comes from experience. The attempts by others at using the typology to invalid apologetic claims and arguments, has taken various forms, often somewhere along the lines of: "you are an 'Internet Mormon' and thus can't really speak for the Church, and this because the leaders and most of the members are 'Chapel Mormons'".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-