DiscussMormonism.com

Is this whole chapel/internet taxonomy discussion getting way overblown? There are literalist chapel Mormons who tow the line depending on what decade they grew up in. Then there are the Eggheads who play DnD, read history or just enjoy learning deeper about certain subjects. It seems that the difference is a graded scale focused on how much one accepts about the natural world, historical research and methods of reaching conclusions.

In short, at one end are chapel Mormons. On the other are...exmormons. In between the great divide are the Jack Mormons and the apologists.

What I am displaying is one of two things. First I show how easy it is to type up in the matter of a few minutes a taxonomy that I have neither verified nor am sure if it even matches reality. Its easy.

Second is that Mercs lesson of the day that I am taking away from this post is that a lot of us pull crap out of our ass on this board, especially when it justifies our position.

Don't bloody take yourself seriously, especially if you also believe a con man "found" some plates in his damned backyard.

Interesting view Merc.

All of use were once a chapel Mormon.

I know of a number of hardcore apologists who passed on to become exmormons like you and I.

I do agree that the middle of this mess are the apologists.

I guess all of us exmormons do pass through somewhat of an apologist mode, some more rapidly than others. Some, out of choice or survival get stuck on either the fringe of chapel Mormonism or exmormonism, and apologists smack in the middle.

I too was an apologist -but only for a few minutes just before I blerted out "WTF??? You have GOT to be kidding!" at my screen displaying some crap I read on fair/farms/mi.

I do think it's possible to hang around as an "internet Mormon" or something akin to it, and yet both believe sincerely in the Church's teachings and pass your version of those teachings on to your children.

My dad is much like this: he's been a faithful member since his conversion at 18 and really, really lives it, but ever since I can remember, he's been completely open to modern political liberalism, biological evolution, LGT, and reinterpretation of many statements by prophets and apostles to "fit" current discoveries, events, and changes in Church teachings. He passed this mindset on to all of his children. As of yet, I'm the only one in the family to leave the Church... the rest exist at a point of apologetic stasis.

The only downside is that the cognitive dissonance there can be rather overwhelming.

Thama wrote:As of yet, I'm the only one in the family to leave the Church... the rest exist at a point of apologetic stasis.

"Apologetic stasis". . . heh! Like collegeterrace, I could only remain in apologetic stasis for a nanosecond. I immediately realized that the same excuses could be applied to every other religious founder to make his religion true, too.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Thama wrote:As of yet, I'm the only one in the family to leave the Church... the rest exist at a point of apologetic stasis.

"Apologetic stasis". . . heh! Like collegeterrace, I could only remain in apologetic stasis for a nanosecond. I immediately realized that the same excuses could be applied to every other religious founder to make his religion true, too.

Shades, at this point were you able to easilly walk away from the church? People such as myself went through the apologetic wishywashyness phase over the course of years. How was your situation different? I think this difference tells alot about the chances of someone leaving the church.