DiscussMormonism.com

I was farting around on FAIRwiki and saw that they had pooped out a response to Shades's essay. This is new to me! Have you seen this, Shades? Can we anticipate a response to FAIR's hardhitting analysis and decisive demolishment of your every point?

I got a kick out of it.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Internet_Mormons_vs._Chapel_Mormons

This seems contradictory to me:

LDS belief is more of a broad spectrum, not two isolated positions. Most Latter-day Saints do not sit exactly at the opposite points "Shades" proposes; they are somewhere in-between.

Okay, so you are saying there aren't two categories of believers.

Another issue Mr. Gallentine ignored is that these differences in perspective existed long before the Internet allowed Latter-day Saints to discuss various views, and will continue long afterwards. There are members of the LDS faith who could be classified as "Internet Mormons" (using "Dr. Shades'" schema) who never used the Internet — including those who died long before the Internet was invented. There are also very active LDS members on the Internet who are best classified as "Chapel Mormons."

Okay, so now there are two categories of believers, and this lets you make a pedantic issue out of the term "internet".

This criticism is so "hardhitting" that the reviewer punches himself in the nose!



My opinion: there really aren't two categories of believers. There are two approaches believers can use for dealing with difficult Mormon issues. He can hold fast to the teachings of the prophets and bend the science/history/whatever until it fits (kind of like a stereotypical "chapel Mormon"). Or he can accept the science/history and bend the teachings of the prophets (stereotypical "internet Mormon"). So there are two different categories of apologetics.

I am left wondering why the author felt it necessary to attack this essay.

I'm wondering why they felt the need to disclose your real name???

Scottie wrote:I'm wondering why they felt the need to disclose your real name???

They withered under crockett's badgering like the wimps that they are.

Scottie wrote:I'm wondering why they felt the need to disclose your real name???

I didn't even think about this. I thought Shades's real identity was well known.

Shades, delete this thread if you are not comfortable with the personal information it reveals, and please accept my apology for my thoughtlessness.

Scottie wrote:I'm wondering why they felt the need to disclose your real name???

Shades presented the theory at Sunstone under his real name--it's not a secret.

One of the things that I've always found funny about Shades's dichotomy is that, while I'm probably the archetypal "internet Mormon" -- adherent, according to Scratch, of an altogether distinct religion -- whenever I've taken one of Scratch's little diagnostic tests I always come out quite squarely as a "chapel Mormon."

The article says Dr. Shades presented the essay at Sunstone 2004 under his real name.

Daniel Peterson wrote:One of the things that I've always found funny about Shades's dichotomy is that, while I'm probably the archetypal "internet Mormon" -- adherent, according to Scratch, of an altogether distinct religion -- whenever I've taken one of Scratch's little diagnostic tests I always come out quite squarely as a "chapel Mormon."

Me too.