Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons thread on MA&D

[_Gadianton]

I ended up responding on MAD and identified myself.

My response revolved around Hugh Nibley's 4 ways of dealing with criticism, a topic both myself and Doctor Scratch have discussed here quite a bit. While I didn't spell this part out, for those whose biggest criticism was that Shades tried to "quantify" people into polar extremes, they will have to do the same with Nibley's four ways. To read either with the most literalistic, scientifically precise way, dividing 11 million members into 4 groups isn't all that much bigger an improvement than dividing into 2 groups. I will expound on this if it comes up in any response to me. I kind of doubt anyone will respond, to be honest.

I argued that 2 groups of Nibley's are roughly the "chapel Mormons", 1 are the "internet Mormons" and one "cultural Mormons" that shades doesn't address, and that anyone who agrees with nibley agrees 75% of the way with shades.

also that shades's take is biased toward the chapel Mormon, which is why internet Mormons get so upset over it, and that Nibley's is biased toward the internet Mormon. you can feel Nibley's disdain when he talks about the chapel Mormon selling "mock wisdom" for money.

[_EAllusion]

In order for there to be a useful dichotomy from a spectrum of beliefs, you have to be able to demonstrate that the various traits of group X cohere together as do the various traits of group Y in a distinct manner. It's not enough to list a bunch of traits, call one chapel, and the other internet on a case by case basis. You have to show that there chapel traits correlate well with other chapel traits and internet traits correlate well with other internet traits with there being an inverse relationship between the two. This is a nontrivial matter and it isn't at all obvious in all the examples typically listed. You can't think you are on to something merely from an intuitive sense about relatively conservative and liberal beliefs with respect to individual issues in the LDS faith.

At best, all this is a hunch that requires good sociological study. Remember your survey Shades? That was *ahem* not the greatest attempt to find support. Your idea needs more rigor for it to be taken more seriously.

[_why me]

Those individuals who embrace postmodernism tend to break up huge groups into smaller groups and claim that each group holds their own truth. Mormonism is a metanarrative. But for postmodernists, this metanarrative needs to be broken down into split sub groups. Thus, in an attempt to show that the metanarrative is not actually a monolith of truth but rather it consists of subgroupings each with its version of the truth they attempt to sow splits in the metanarrative by creating different idenities.

Internet Mormons are basically chapel Mormons who happen to find time to debate and discuss on the internet. Internetland has its own socialization process based on what is found to be discussed. Nothing more.

[_EAllusion]

Uh, categorizing groups of belief is not a "postmodern" thing.

[Tator]

LOL. Juliann's response to Gad's astute observation was that Shades had committed plagiarism.

Ummm, if Shades simply plagiarized ideas from the revered Nibley, why do they fight against it tooth and nail?

I know that, before losing faith and happening on the internet, I would have been shocked by some of the ideas believers advocate on the net (notably the prophet can teach erroneous ideas across the pulpit, in the name of JC, while functioning as prophet), and probably would have thought they were on the road to apostasy. It certainly didn't sound like what I had been taught in the chapel.

(Whoops - that was a response to Ray mentioning Poll)

[_EAllusion]

When secular knowledge conflicts with a traditional religious understanding, the believer has three options:

1) He can reject the religious understanding

2) He can reject commonly accepted secular knowledge

3) He can reinterpret the traditional religious understanding in a way that is no longer in conflict with the secular knowledge.

The first is the nonbelievers route. The difference between the second and third is the quick and dirty version of the difference between fundamentalism and theological liberalism. Of course, within the third option there are more and less liberal means of reinterpretation. Accepting the LGT is different than accepting the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired pseduoepigraphia written by J. Smith.

Casual observation is enough to see it is pretty clear that there is a spectrum of responses to secular criticisms and conflicts with the LDS faith with some responses being predictive of others. No shock there. Heck, I'd bet my life savings that there is a good positive correlation between hemispheric model belief and not getting multiple ear piercings within Mormondom. My skepticism in Shades claims are more in how far he goes with it - the kinds of claims he makes - in absence of any good evidence.

[_EAllusion]

LOL. Juliann's response to Gad's astute observation was that Shades had committed plagiarism.

Huh.

I know it was very common for people to defend Shades dichotomy by arguing it was highly similar to the "Iron Rod" vs "Liahona" Mormon distinct LDS tend to be more friendly with given the source. I don't remember her trying to argue Shades plagiarized that.

[_why me]

Uh, categorizing groups of belief is not a "postmodern" thing.

Actually it is. Postmodernity attempts to bunk metanarratives by claiming that there is no absolute truth. Mormonism is an absolute truth. Thus, postmodernists would attempt to dissect the Mormon metanarrative into subgroupings and identities to show cracks in the metanarrative. And for shades, we now have chapel and internet Mormons each with their own identity truth.

[_Mercury]

As we covered on the podcast, the whole thing comes down to the context of where the defender of the faith is actively performing the apologetics. If needed, they transform into an internet Mormon via the power of obfuscation of previously held certainty and the misdirection of prophetic intent. Things get hazy in Internet mormonville, while they can conveniently jump back to the chapel when palling around with those who don't have to defend the faith against rational discourse.

Say it with me now, D-O-U-B-L-E-T-H-I-N-K

Simply put, the discussion over at the other board once again betrays the apologists (intentional?) misunderstanding of what the Good Doctor is attempting to impart.

On a side note, I am going to make it a point to call Peterson Danny every chance I can get. To think that one can get reprimanded by the nazis over there for doing so is beyond asinine.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

As we covered on the podcast, the whole thing comes down to the context of where the defender of the faith is actively performing the apologetics. If needed, they transform into an internet Mormon via the power of obfuscation of previously held certainty and the misdirection of prophetic intent. Things get hazy in Internet mormonville, while they can conveniently jump back to the chapel when palling around with those who don't have to defend the faith against rational discourse.

Say it with me now, D-O-U-B-L-E-T-H-I-N-K

Simply put, the discussion over at the other board once again betrays the apologists (intentional?) misunderstanding of what the Good Doctor is attempting to impart.

On a side note, I am going to make it a point to call Peterson Danny every chance I can get. To think that one can get reprimanded by the nazis over there for doing so is beyond asinine.

I got permanently banned for that act of disrespect. Say it with me D-a-n-n-y