Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism--THE DELUXE EDITION

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi folks,

I recently did an extensive expansion to my webpage on Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism. Specifically, I identified many, many more points of divergence between the two ideologies.

However, the points of divergence this time around only pointed out various trends stemming from ambiguous doctrinality or mixed signals from the Brethren.

As such, I'm a little concerned whether the newly-implemented second list is entirely necessary and/or if it only serves to add confusion as opposed to eliminating it. Plus, I wonder if the questionable doctrinality of the items in the second list causes the items in the first list--unambiguously doctrinal that they are--to be "watered-down?"

Therefore, I respectfully request your input, constructive criticism, suggestions for improvement, etc. regarding the revamped website. It's at:

Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism

Scroll down to the second instance of red text to begin reading where the new material begins.

In addition, I finally created a page which corrects all the misconceptions floating around out there regarding the Internet Mormonism/Chapel Mormonism phenomenon. Again, I'd like to hear your input, constructive criticism, suggestions for improvement, etc. regarding this new site, too. It's at:

F.O.M. (Frequently-Occurring Misconceptions)

Thanks, everyone, for your time.

.

[_TAK]

LOL..
That ought to get DCP from out behind the curtian to re-affirm that he is indeed a Chapel Mormie ..

[_zzyzx]

In a cursory reading of the pages I find them interesting. I would change the 'thankfully/thanks they believe in evolution' part to just a belief in evolution. The editorializing isn't needed.

Will have to revisit when I have a lot more time to read carefully.

[_Some Schmo]

F.O.M. (Frequently-Occurring Misconceptions)

Good stuff.

One question (just out of curiosity): You made the comment, "The correction to this misconception is that the Internet Mormonism/Chapel dichotomy was discovered while trying to comprehend and understand apologetics." It struck me as a bit verbose. What, in your mind, is the distinction between "comprehend" and "understand?"

[_Scottie]

I had to laugh at this line:

Most if not all Chapel Mormons believe that the prophet is always right about church doctrine when he declares it in General Conference--otherwise what's the point?

I went on a date with a Chapel Mormon who said this exact thing to me. Almost word for word.

[_EAllusion]

Even if we accept Shade's categories as coherent and useful, the vast majority of people he would describe as Internet Mormons I've encountered do not believe in evolutionary theory. Some are explicit about the denial. Others say they believe in evolution, but if you dig a little depper "evolution" is defined in a way that does not really correspond to the most basic outline of modern evolutionary theory. (Frequently derisively called "Darwinism as derived from the creationist movement). It's actually a rarity for me to encounter an apologist via online interaction like Kevin Barney who does genuinely uphold evolutinary theory.

[_Gadianton]

Most of the new material I agree with. I think Shades and I read Brother Poll differently, or rather our way of synthesizing the material is different. I think the "FOM" section is really "FOiM", with the "i" for "intentional". I was glad to see some of the updates, particularily the mention of Meldrum and the material relating to the conception of Jesus.

It would be rather strange for the apologists to score as Chapel Mormons given -- agree or not wth the labels and the implications to holding the beliefs -- that Shades simply observed many of the positions the apologists were taking. I mean, it's day-in-day-out LTG and then come survey time no one believes in the LTG?

EA,

I agree with your observation. I would point out though that you can see the Internet Mormonism coarsing through their veins on this point because they have such a hatred of science, being predisposed toward fundamentalist Mormonism, and it's only in the strain of knowing they can't hold out that they half-heartedly "agree" with evolution (DCP). As I've learned, the apologists loathe science because it has shown how patently absurd their charished beliefs are. But they more or less pay lip service to it to try and salvage some image of rationality and seriousness. Note that the apologetic questioning of evolution is not a isolated case, they also question Egyptology, New World history, and even their acceptance that the earth wasn't created in 7 days doesn't square with geology. I think they're so locked in to the apologetic mindset that they don't really care about science one way or another anymore. If something from science in some feeble way supports their position, great, if not, they question the positivistic bedrock. This is actually what makes apologetics so dangerous. At least the average die-hard Chapel Mormon has the potential to be enlightened.

[_Ray A]

"People who believe that the Flood was only local, that Adam was not the first human, etc. have been around a lot longer than the Internet itself has. Therefore, there's no such thing as Internet Mormonism."
Before the Internet, Mormons with such beliefs typically harbored them in silence. Thanks to the Internet, Mormons holding such beliefs finally have a venue through which they can express these beliefs freely.
With that in mind, the correction to this misconception is similar to the correction to misconception #1: "The Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon model never referred to the physical places that they inhabit. The Internet Mormonism/Chapel Mormonism model refers only to the venues in which these incarnations of Mormonism are promulgated, conveyed, shared, and evangelized."

Shades, I've highlighted a part which is still problematic. Discussions about evolution/flood theories have been around since the Talmage/Smith/Roberts debates. For quick reference:

Pre-Adamites

There has been a great deal of controversy among Church members over the issue of pre-Adamites. Some general authorities accepted their existence, while others completely denied it.

David O. McKay on evolution (1959): http://www-personal.umich.edu/~akc/evolution.htm

Hugh Nibley on Pre-Adamites:

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation — for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine — a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins.("Before Adam")

Remember too that Nibley was the one who said that disagreement with the prophets "should be kept to onself", but he openly expounded these theories.

The literature on this in Dialogue and Sunstone has also been around since the 1960s-1970s.

So to say:

Before the Internet, Mormons with such beliefs typically harbored them in silence.

.....cannot be accurate. Unless your "typically" is meant to convey the impression that this is referring to the "average" member. Still, Dialoguers and Sunstoners openly discussed these pre-Internet. Maybe you'll have to be more explicit there.

[_Ray A]

Here is another article from Dialogue (Volume 12, Number 4, Winter 1979), by a professor of geology at the University of Utah. The correspondence with McKay goes back to the 1950s. He was later given permission to openly circulate McKay's reply.

[_Ray A]

Has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
split into two different religions (without even knowing it)?

The answer to that question would have to be no, and here's why:

Those two examples, extreme as they may be, illustrate an age-old divide in Mormon thought and attitude. Dr. Richard Poll, a former BYU professor, described the two philosophies as "Liahona Mormonism" and "Iron Rod Mormonism."

"The Iron Rod Saint does not look for questions, but for answers, and in the Gospel -- as he understands it -- he finds or is confident that he can find the answer to every important question," Poll writes, essentially describing the students who saw the shelving policy as a religious issue.

Describing people like the BYU students who were skeptical of the church's Prop. 8 involvement, Poll writes: "The Liahona Saint, on the other hand, is preoccupied with questions and skeptical of answers; he finds in the Gospel-- as he understands it -- answers to enough important questions so that he can function purposefully without answers to the rest."

Poll points out that both Iron Rods and Liahonas can be found in most every ward, among the active and inactive, and even among the General Authorities.

On my mission, I was immediately and regularly confronted with this idea.

Mormon Times. (Emphasis added)