Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

[_Gadianton]

I concur with Doctor Scratch on this one. There isn't much difference between "cultural Mormons" and Internet Mormons when it comes to using ones education to misinterpret the scriptures. And I wager the Internet Mormon has more contempt for the Chapel Mormon than the Cultural Mormon.

The Book of Mormon says nothing about barges, horses, or the American Indians descending from the Lamanites.

[_Gadianton]

How, in your view, are the Jaredite "vessels" any different from submarines, practically speaking?

Speaking as an ignorant layman submarines are designed to purposefully go underwater. The barges as described were designed to endure waves and brief periods of submersion presumably in roughs seas.

a vessel that can be submerged and navigated under water, usually built for warfare and armed with torpedoes or guided missiles.

Sounds like s submarine to me. The "barges" could be submerged even if for "brief periods" and apparently navigated as needed. Even though they didn't have torpedoes, they had a kind of battery powered light inside.

[_Gazelam]

Scratch,

The point I'm trying to make is that Mormons have the innate right withen the Church to believe whatever they want. Problems only arise when boatrockers start trying to reshape things to suit their viewpoint.

Church headquarters peforms their duty of setting up a few boundries and focussing everyones attention on the Godhead. They tell everyone to follow the Saviors example and to listen to the Spirit, after that your on your own.

McConkies Mormon Doctrine had an interesting effect in that it took some by suprise. Some were angry with its demanding tone, but the vast majority embraced it and used it to enhance their faith. The same thign occured with his speech entitled Seven Deadly Heresies. That talk sought to end the Adam-God nonsense as well as the heretical theory that God never stops learning.

Joseph Smith encouraged an open and unbridled faith, and the ability to follow our faith where it would take us in regards to personal revelation and the expansion of our understanding regarding gospel truths. That being said, there is an order to the Priesthood, and a definate way that the Church operates. The casual member has no right to demand anything of the brethren.

Brigham himself demanded no one to follow after his theory regarding Adam. He stated it was a personal belief, and that it put no ones salvation in jeapordy to reject it. Perhaps if the September six had had this same attitude they would still be able to count themselves among our membership.

[_Gazelam]

Gad,

There isn't much difference between "cultural Mormons" and Internet Mormons when it comes to using ones education to misinterpret the scriptures. And I wager the Internet Mormon has more contempt for the Chapel Mormon than the Cultural Mormon.

great line. Quoteworthy

And the Jaredite barges were not submarines. To my knowledge they couldn't even steer the things. They also had no control regarding the depth at which they traveled.

[_Phouchg]

What is the point of believing in something if you can't act on it?



fook

[_The Nehor]

Sounds like s submarine to me. The "barges" could be submerged even if for "brief periods" and apparently navigated as needed. Even though they didn't have torpedoes, they had a kind of battery powered light inside.

If you consider letting God drive navigating your boat I really want to see you go on a boating trip.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure their lights were powered by nuclear energy and not through a pair of D batteries.

[_Ray A]

What's the difference between a Chapel Mormon and an Internet Mormon?

Chapel Mormon: "Once upon a time...."

Internet Mormon: "Y'all ain't gonna believe this crap."

[_Benjamin McGuire]

You can always divide people into 10 categories.

Those who know binary, and those who don't.

[_harmony]

The point I'm trying to make is that Mormons have the innate right withen the Church to believe whatever they want.

What use is the TRI then?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch,

The point I'm trying to make is that Mormons have the innate right withen the Church to believe whatever they want. Problems only arise when boatrockers start trying to reshape things to suit their viewpoint.

Yes; I know. We're on the same page here, my friend. The apologists are trying to reshape the doctrine of the Church so that it is more fully in line with secular, academic thinking. There is a clear line of advocacy that is pushing the Church away from spirituality and revelation, and more in the direction of intellectualism and empiricism.

Church headquarters peforms their duty of setting up a few boundries and focussing everyones attention on the Godhead. They tell everyone to follow the Saviors example and to listen to the Spirit, after that your on your own.

Contrast this with Mopologetics, which urges people not to follow the prophets and to read the scriptures, but to studies the articles at FAIR and FARMS. Honestly: when have you ever seen an apologist advise somebody to pray and/or read the Book of Mormon? I never have. The solution always comes by way of a link to the Maxwell Institute.

McConkies Mormon Doctrine had an interesting effect in that it took some by suprise. Some were angry with its demanding tone, but the vast majority embraced it and used it to enhance their faith.

Well, we need to bear in mind that Elder McConkie was one of the Brethren. He had been ordained an apostle (and yet still, as you point out, he was doing something very controversial). The apologists, on the other hand, have *not* been ordained or set apart (or so they say; there are two sides to every story), so one had to seriously question whether they are operating within acceptable boundaries. Personally, Gaz, I think you should write an impassioned letter to the Brethren, begging them to discontinue the apologetic arm of the MI, and to issue a very strong warning to the most offensive and demanding of the Mopologists.

That being said, there is an order to the Priesthood, and a definate way that the Church operates. The casual member has no right to demand anything of the brethren.

Well, please recall that B. Hamblin essentially demanded that the Brethren reverse hundreds of years of doctrine concerning the location of the Hill Cumorah. Or do you consider B. Hamblin to be something other than a "casual member"?

Perhaps if the September six had had this same attitude they would still be able to count themselves among our membership.

I'm afraid I disagree with you here, Gazelam. There are plenty of individuals within the Church (as I've noted above) who have flagrantly brandished this "let's re-shape the Church" attitude. The Sept. 6 we're ex'ed for some other reason: not for "advocacy" or "ark-steadying."