Are the Apologists Embarrassed of Chapel Mormons?

[_maklelan]

the only group I have seen deny there are "internet Mormons" are internet Mormons. Chapel Mormons have no difficulty pointing out the difference.

I've met plenty of people who would qualify as "Chapel Mormons" who reject that dichotomy. I've also met plenty of people who would qualify as "Internet Mormons" who accept the dichotomy. I think your observation is a bit reductive.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Convinced by a "right" or equally valid argument? Or by a lesser one?

I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean no one else is allowed to.

Fair enough, but I'm not asking about whether or not someone is "allowed" to agree. I'm asking about validity.

And why would you treat the garment stories with "skepticism"?

Because they don't really strike me as particularly in line with my experience with garments and their purposes, and because there are usually better explanations, when the stories are not too unbelievable.

Which aspects of the supernatural are you less inclined to regard with skepticism? E.g., testimonies gained from the Book of Mormon? When a Church member testifies that they felt spiritually moved from reading the Book of Mormon, and that this was the Holy Ghost influencing them--do you view this as a legitimate "visitation"? Or do you think--to borrow your phrasing--that "there are usually better explanations"? Something purely neurological, for example?

I'm assuming that you'd be less skeptical of other kinds of stories concerning spiritual experiences. No?

No, I'm pretty equally skeptical.

I have to admit, I find that utterly bizarre. I don't know how you're able to fit in with your TBM comrades.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Thanks, Dr. Scratch,

I've been busy, but I hope to catch up with everyone soon.

It looks like it has been business as usual here (angry Mopologists, BC Space and Loran Blood). It's like time has stood still.

[_maklelan]

Wow, this is a conundrum. I'm not an Internet Mormon, so I can't really offer any insights--only guesses--so please take what I say with a HUGE grain of salt.

Of course, you wouldn't ever consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Hmm. If I was to mind read a little, perhaps the litmus test is whether or not the claim is scientifically falsifiable? Or, barring that, the claims that haven't yet been disproven by science vs. the ones that have been?

Yeah, and the whole thing just boggles my mind. Meldrum does nothing other than quote the words of the prophets,

You mean he doesn't interpret them a specific way? He does nothing other than simply quote them?

yet somehow those who believe the words of the prophets are charlatans and frauds? That sounds like a dangerous (or, at least, baffling) road for a believing Mormon to travel.

Internet Mormons would label them "ignorant," I'd bet.

I wouldn't say that.

Not ignorant of the prophets, but ignorant of the fine scholarship and reinterpretations that the Internet Mormons have given us.

I see.

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet Earth, a baptism by immersion?

A. Yes
B. No

I don't believe it did. I can come up with dozens of questions that divide the church's membership into two camps, and if we stack all these divisions up on top of each other a couple of them may actually correspond roughly. Does that mean we've identified a useful dichotomy, or just that the church has people in it that believe different things, just like every other organization on the planet?

[_maklelan]

Fair enough, but I'm not asking about whether or not someone is "allowed" to agree. I'm asking about validity.

Then the fact that I disagree with their position should have already tipped you off to which argument I think is more valid.

Which aspects of the supernatural are you less inclined to regard with skepticism?

The ones I've prayed about and received a spiritual witness.

E.g., testimonies gained from the Book of Mormon? When a Church member testifies that they felt spiritually moved from reading the Book of Mormon, and that this was the Holy Ghost influencing them--do you view this as a legitimate "visitation"? Or do you think--to borrow your phrasing--that "there are usually better explanations"? Something purely neurological, for example?

Often there are better explanations, including neurological.

I have to admit, I find that utterly bizarre.

I guess you don't know many Mormons.

I don't know how you're able to fit in with your TBM comrades.

I fit in just fine.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Fair enough, but I'm not asking about whether or not someone is "allowed" to agree. I'm asking about validity.

Then the fact that I disagree with their position should have already tipped you off to which argument I think is more valid.

But that's not what you said. Your initial response suggested that this was mere disagreement, and that actual validity and truthfulness had nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter appears to be that you think these people believe in things that are false.

[_maklelan]

But that's not what you said. Your initial response suggested that this was mere disagreement,

Yes. When I think a particular conclusion is more valid than a different conclusion espoused by another person, there is mere disagreement.

and that actual validity and truthfulness had nothing to do with it.

So when I suggest that my conclusion is more valid than another conclusion, I'm not making a statement about validity and truthfulness?

The fact of the matter appears to be that you think these people believe in things that are false.

Yeah. So? Everyone believes in things that are false, you're just frustrated because I'm not falling for this childish attempt to get me to insist that people who disagree with me (read: "Chapel Mormons") are ignorant knuckle-draggers. Apparently you live in a world where others either agree with you or are idiots.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The fact of the matter appears to be that you think these people believe in things that are false.

Yeah. So? Everyone believes in things that are false, you're just frustrated because I'm not falling for this childish attempt to get me to insist that people who disagree with me (read: "Chapel Mormons") are ignorant knuckle-draggers. Apparently you live in a world where others either agree with you or are idiots.

What do I believe in that's false? What do *you* believe in that's false, for that matter? I appreciate your candor here, Mak: it's true that people judge each other, and that seems to be what's happening with you and the Chapel Mormons.

And I do live in a world where people who disagree with me on certain things are idiots. For example, I disagree with Droopy on the role of "leftism" in America, and partly because of that, I think he's an idiot. There are also people out there who think that James Joyce was a "hack." These people, too, are idiots.

But you're missing the point. It's not as if we're talking about disagreements over trivial things like tastes in sports, food, or literature. We are talking about the One True Church on the Face of the Earth. (Or is that up for debate, too?) And I don't blame you for being sensitive to my line of inquiry: you probably do think that the Chapel Mormons are "knuckle-draggers," and you rightfully don't want to admit it. That's fine, Maklelan--honesty is almost always the best way to go.

Really, though, the key question here is what to do about this state of affairs. Maybe you should try to put pressure on the Brethren, so that they'll take action and do something about this, so that it doesn't look like you're associated with a bunch of rubes who believe in stupid things?

[_ldsfaqs]

Since there is no such thing as an Internet and Chapel Mormon, what do we have to be "embarrassed" about???

We are "Mormons"..... We ALL believe the same, save the rare nut like consig who loves his anti-mormonism.

[_Runtu]

Since there is no such thing as an Internet and Chapel Mormon, what do we have to be "embarrassed" about???

We are "Mormons"..... We ALL believe the same, save the rare nut like consig who loves his anti-mormonism.

If anyone needed proof of consiglieri's sanity, there it is.