Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons thread on MA&D

[_Dr. Shades]

If you had typed up the survey, what would it look like?

Off the top of my head: I'd use weighted sampling techniques and make sure I was hitting demographically relevant portions of the LDS faith in proportion. The sample size would be much larger. I'd have test-retest, and internal reliability constructs built into the question lists through similarly worded questions attempting to measure the same dimension and rephrasing of specific questions. There would be a clear operational definition of the concepts I'm attempting to measure with a rationale for why each question validly relates to each group. I'd use an ANOVA to make sure there was statistically significant relationships between answer patterns. I'd use Likert scale measuring instead of Yes No I Don't Know, etc.

Please be specific; please type out the improved survey so that I can copy, paste, and print it.

As it stands, your survey did not allow you to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. The more seriously you take it, the more embarrassing it is.

That's exactly why I don't take it seriously. Recall that I called it--and still call it--an "informal survey." It's only my Internet Mormon friends over at MA&D who take it as gospel truth when they wish to use it against me.

[_Dr. Shades]

My objection to your scheme is not self-contradictory.

That's correct, since I don't recall you accusing me of having ripped off Poll.

That there exists a spectrum of beliefs and attitudes within Mormonism - or, more precisely, that there exist multiple spectra within Mormonism -- is obvious.

Which is precisely why I've always been quick to admit the spectrum.

In FAIRness, however, DCP took the survey before I decided to go door-to-door and compile any results. His answers landed him in the Chapel Mormon camp, as he has remind us nearly every time the Internet Mormonism/Chapel Mormonism subject comes up. However, I wonder about the veracity of his answers:

When the survey data don't support his pet theory, the true zealot insinuates that those he surveyed are liars. It simply can't be the case that his pet theory is misguided.

Well? Are the prophets correct and the bones belonged to a white Lamanite named Zelph who served under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the Eastern Seaboard, or the Hill Cumorah, to the Rocky Mountains--or are the apologist correct and the bones belonged to no such person?

When people at a Sunstone symposium (who should have been fairly sympathetic) find The Pet Theory risible, the problem lies with them. Surely not with The Pet Theory!

Fortunately, no one at a Sunstone symposium found the theory risible.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, Shades created a handy dandy test to see if you are Internet or Chapel. While the test didn't appear to have any reliability or validity, DCP scored Chapel simply by giving answers congruent with his posting history. So as Lavar Burton would say, you don't have to take my word for it.

That's true; I don't have you take your word for it, and I don't. I can use my own brain to determine what's what. The net result is that sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't.

I have my own experience with danny's posting history, and it seems to be a different experience than yours. Oh well.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That there exists a spectrum of beliefs and attitudes within Mormonism - or, more precisely, that there exist multiple spectra within Mormonism -- is obvious.

Which is precisely why I've always been quick to admit the spectrum.

"Two entirely distinct churches"? "Two completely separate religions?"

Hardly.

Well? Was Joseph Smith correct and that the bones belonged to a white Lamanite named Zelph who served under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the Eastern Seaboard, or the Hill Cumorah, to the Rocky Mountains--or are the apologist correct and the bones belonged to no such person?

He may well have been correct.

Once again, though, the answer need not be a simple yes or no. You seem to be operating under a fundamentalist-like mindset.

Much rests, in this particular case, on precisely what Joseph Smith said. And, on that, the sources are less than entirely secure.

Thus, the "Joseph Smith position" is somewhat ambiguous. And, if there's really a univocal "apologist position" as you sketch it here, I'm unaware of that. (But then, of course, since I'm a "Chapel Mormon"(c), it's very possible that you know more about Internet Mormon apologists than I do.)

Fortunately, no one at a Sunstone symposim found the theory risible.

So are you claiming that the respondent and the audience for your presentation at Sunstone found it acceptable and unproblematic? Please advise.

[_EAllusion]

Put it this way Shades:

You have "Internet Mormons" which you've defined as having traits 1...n

Then you have "Chapel Mormons" which you've defined as having traits 1...s.

For purposes of this discussion, we'll just assume that you've consistently and clearly defined these groups.

In order to demonstrate that these are two meaningfully distinct subgroups within Mormonism you need to establish that traits 1...n are strongly predictive of one another while being negatively predictive of 1...s. And vica versa for the reverse. In short, the presence of one trait accurately predicts the presence or absence of others. If and when that is the case, we then can usefully talk about these two distinct groups. This is all fine and dandy, but you can't take it for granted that this is the case. Hence the call for empirical support. Your survey failed on a variety of grounds, which we don't need to rehash.

[_EAllusion]

Please be specific; please type out the improved survey so that I can copy, paste, and print it.

So it's come to you asking me to do something for you right now that that people would do for a senior thesis in college over a substantial period of time? Lol. No. I think we both know that I don't need to offer something better to see your survey as the joke that it is. How oddly defensive.

That's exactly why I don't take it seriously.

If you'd like, I can pull out numerous quotes from the thread I linked in the other thread demonstrating that you did take it more seriously than warranted. And mind you, want is warranted is essentially nothing. Calling it "informal" isn't the same thing as admitting one cannot draw any useful conclusions from it.

[_Dr. Shades]

In order to demonstrate that these are two meaningfully distinct subgroups within Mormonism you need to establish that traits 1...n are strongly predictive of one another while being negatively predictive of 1...s. And vica versa for the reverse. In short, the presence of one trait accurately predicts the presence or absence of others. If and when that is the case, we then can usefully talk about these two distinct groups.

In your experience, do you see a difference between the Mormonism described by the apologists here on the Internet and the Mormonism described by the prophets and apostles?

[_Daniel Peterson]

In your experience, do you see a difference between the Mormonism described by the apologists here on the Internet and the Mormonism described by the prophets and apostles?

And, by all means, avert your eyes from any significant continuities.

Remember: "Two utterly distinct religions!" "Two completely separate churches!"

[_Dr. Shades]

And, by all means, avert your eyes from any significant continuities.

Remember: "Two utterly distinct religions!" "Two completely separate churches!"

Are the LDS and the FLDS two utterly distinct religions? Are they two completely separate churches?

. . . in spite of all their significant continuities?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Remember: "Two utterly distinct religions!" "Two completely separate churches!"

Are the LDS and the FLDS two utterly distinct religions? Are they two completely separate churches?
. . . in spite of all their significant continuities?[/quote]
It depends on the nature of the differences and the nature of the continuities.

Sorry, Shades. Your position on this is simply ridiculous, impossible to take seriously. You do yourself no credit by persisting in its advocacy.