Man, oh man.
That thread at MA&D has grown considerably since I posted the link, and I've only had time to go through about 2/3 of it, but holy cow, that thread is beyond bizarre--it's downright
surreal. It's as though the believers there are engaged in a carefully scripted absurdist drama, faithfully performing their song and dance of pretending to misunderstand the Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism concept. Seriously, that thread far outdoes even the best episode of
The Twilight Zone.
Fortunately, though, John Larsen, Nyal, and Gadianton have refused to let go of the beacon of rationality. Gadianton in particular has raised some good points that definitely deserve a response.
Among other things, he writes:
Of anyone I know, Dr. Shades is probably the very least in danger of becoming postmodern.
That's absolultely correct. I think postmodernism can be a useful tool only to the extent that it's employed as a gadfly to remind us to always keep an open mind and never to become complacent in our paradigms. As a way of life and as a literal worldview, however, I think postmodernism is a cancerous blight on the collective intellect of mankind, and quite literally threatens to undo centuries of human learning and progress. Show me a person who proudly identifies him/herself as a postmodernist, and I'll show you a person whose only destiny is to
stunt the rate of mankind's intellectual progress.
Gadianton next reminds us of a third category of Mormons, the "Cultural Mormons," that Nibley identified back in the day. Now, the reason I didn't bother to integrate Cultural Mormons into the Internet/Chapel spectrum is because it doesn't belong: Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons are two different brands of people who
believe in Mormonism and otherwise take it seriously. Cultural Mormons, on the other hand, to some extent or other
disbelieve in Mormonism or otherwise do not take it seriously. Thus we're talking about apples and oranges.
Gadianton also expresses concern with my oft-used hyperbole about Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism being two distinct religions. Now, it cannot be argued that Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism are
literally two different religions, since each group attends church together, participates in the same ordinances together, and recognizes the exact same men as their leaders.
Literally speaking, the Internet Mormonism/Chapel Mormonism dichotomy is probably best described as two separate, identifiable
paradigms of Mormonism, or
ways of interpreting Mormonism, if you will. Of course, there are probably as many different ways of interpreting Mormonism as there are individual Mormons, but these two methodologies represent overarching, magnetizing trends that undeniably, identifiably, and overwhelmingly find themselves manifested in one of two venues: Either in the Chapel, or on the Internet.
So, why do I sometimes identify the two groups as two different churches, or two different religions? Why do I so stridently use such rhetoric? The answer is simple: The emergence of Internet Mormonism is so noteworthy, and so
unprecedented, that its seriousness (especially considering its juxtaposition with Chapel Mormonism) simply cannot be accurately conveyed without a verbal "slap in the face" to the reader. Without using such words as "different religions," people are liable to pass it over without adequately comprehending the gravity of the situation.
So, when I identify the two paradigms as two different religions, am I just lying for effect? No, not at all. Let's examine our assumptions: What, exactly, constitues a "religion?" And if you identify a religion, what, exactly, constitutes a
departure from it?
This hearkens back to "the fallacy of the beard" that Doctor Peterson has articulated on at least two occasions. As he describes it, it can't be disputed that Osama Bin Laden has a beard. It also can't be disputed that if he had no facial hair he would
not have a beard. However, what if Osama Bin Laden had only one strand of facial hair on his chin? Would he then have a beard? Few people would say "yes." What if he had two strands? How about if he had three?
Similarly, what if Osama were to pluck one strand of facial hair from the beard he has now? Would he still have a beard? Few people would say "no." What if he plucked two strands? Three?
So, it's impossible to come to a worldwide consensus on just how many strands of facial hair constitute a "beard" while having one strand less constitues
not having a beard.
So it goes with whether or not Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons constitute two different religions, so-to-speak. Let's take our friend harmony as an example: She attends the same church, participates in the same ordinances, and recognizes (dictionary-definition wise) the same men as her religious leaders as anyone over at MA&D--just as the Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons do. Yet although it can't be denied that harmony, too, is a Mormon, there is hardly a single MA&Dite who wouldn't love to see her excommunicated (if not outright tarred and feathered). Why is this, if she is a member of the same religion? In their minds, her particular
interpretation of Mormonism has disqualified her from "mainstream" status;
thus giving us proof positive that even the MA&Dites are aware of at least one scenario in which an interpretation of Mormonism can constitute being out of harmony (no pun intended) with the Brethren. (NOTE: I am not implying that harmony
is actually out of, uh, harmony with the brethren; I'm only drawing attention to the fact that the MA&Dites think so, mistakenly or otherwise.)
As it goes with harmony, as it goes with Osama Bin Laden's beard, so it goes with Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism: How many divergent beliefs is one allowed to harbor before finding oneself out of harmony with the Brethren? And how far out of harmony with the Brethren can one be before finding oneself a believer in a "different"--however similar--religion? There are no hard and fast answers. So I sometimes use the rhetoric of "different religions" because they sure
look like different religions, even if, strictly speaking, they aren't.
So there you have it.
Switching gears away from Gadianton, the MA&Dites were able to bring up one accusation worth responding to, however: A few of them mistakenly believe that I simply reinvented or repackaged Richard Poll's old Iron Rod Mormon/Liahona Mormon model. Juliann "Transcript" Reynolds even went so far as to accuse me of outright plagiarism of Poll. Now, I highly doubt that Reynolds herself believes this; I personally believe that Reynolds's abject hatred of me and this message board simply motivated Reynolds to craft any hasty accusation in the hopes that it might somehow stick in the minds of Reynolds's fellow MA&Dites.
Now, I was of course aware of Richard Poll and his Liahona/Iron Rod model for several years before being struck by the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon model. It's impossible to participate in online discussions of Mormonism for any length of time
without becoming aware of Poll.
Anyhow, Poll's Liahona/Iron Rod model simply examined
degrees of zealotry among various Mormons. Although the first part of his essay focused strictly on how willing the groups were to accept the church's teachings without outside confirmation, the final part of his essay hinted at the strictness with which various Mormons might--or might not--observe the
actions advocated by the Brethren (go to church each Sunday, always pay fast offerings, etc.).
So, in sum, the Liahona/Iron Rod model is about
degrees of zealotry. The Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon model is about
sets of beliefs. Neither model overlaps in any conceivable way with the other, and I'm rather surprised that even the MA&Dites have so utterly failed to realize this. No, wait. . . I'm not surprised at all.
."Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
