DiscussMormonism.com

A couple of things have had me dwelling on this matter lately. The first is the recent article by Sister Skaggs, in which she complained about the animosity that she senses among her "Internet Mormon" brothers and sisters. The other is Maklelan's en passant remark that he regards stories about the protective qualities of garments "with skepticism."

This raises the question: what does Maklelan think of people who tell these stories? Why does he regard their testimonies "with skepticism"? (And I don't mean to single out just Maklelan here, as I think this is a more widespread tendency among the Mopologist/Internet Mormon set. Cf. SHIELDS' "Rumors" section if you don't believe me.) How can an Internet Mormon possibly explain the Chapel Mormon's claim that his garments shielded him from bullets, for example? The options are rather limited, I think: he can say that the Chapel Mormon is lying, or he can say that the Chapel Mormon experienced a false sense of spiritual feelings this time around. But this latter choice seems like a major problem, because it raises another question: how does one determine which bits of the supernatural are acceptable, and which are embarrassing?

The Mopologists at the Maxwell Institute have come out rather boldly to denounce the very Chapel Mormon-ish Rodney Meldrum as a "charlatan" and a fraud. We might be able to attribute this to the fact that Meldrum has been more aggressive and assertive in expressing his views, but what do the Mopologists think about the LDS who genuinely believe that Meldrum's views are Church orthodoxy? Sure: they might not be "charlatans," since they are more or less keeping their views to themselves, but what does this make them, then, in the eyes of an Internet Mormon?

Doctor Scratch wrote:A couple of things have had me dwelling on this matter lately. The first is the recent article by Sister Skaggs, in which she complained about the animosity that she senses among her "Internet Mormon" brothers and sisters. The other is Maklelan's en passant remark that he regards stories about the protective qualities of garments "with skepticism."

This raises the question: what does Maklelan think of people who tell these stories?

I think they let the temptation to disseminate faith-promoting stories overrule critical thinking. That's a perfectly natural inclination.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Why does he regard their testimonies "with skepticism"?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone bear a testimony regarding the truthfulness of a story about garments physically protecting someone.

Doctor Scratch wrote:(And I don't mean to single out just Maklelan here, as I think this is a more widespread tendency among the Mopologist/Internet Mormon set. Cf. SHIELDS' "Rumors" section if you don't believe me.) How can an Internet Mormon possibly explain the Chapel Mormon's claim that his garments shielded him from bullets, for example?

I've never met a person who claimed their garments shielded him from bullets.

Doctor Scratch wrote:The options are rather limited, I think: he can say that the Chapel Mormon is lying, or he can say that the Chapel Mormon experienced a false sense of spiritual feelings this time around.

Neither. I would probably take a first-hand story like that as the attribution of divine protection to something quite incidental. That's not dishonesty, just an interpretation with which I would disagree.

Doctor Scratch wrote:But this latter choice seems like a major problem, because it raises another question: how does one determine which bits of the supernatural are acceptable, and which are embarrassing?

I don't find them embarrassing, I just find them a little difficult to believe.

Doctor Scratch wrote:The Mopologists at the Maxwell Institute have come out rather boldly to denounce the very Chapel Mormon-ish Rodney Meldrum as a "charlatan" and a fraud. We might be able to attribute this to the fact that Meldrum has been more aggressive and assertive in expressing his views, but what do the Mopologists think about the LDS who genuinely believe that Meldrum's views are Church orthodoxy? Sure: they might not be "charlatans," since they are more or less keeping their views to themselves, but what does this make them, then, in the eyes of an Internet Mormon?

There's no such thing as an "Internet Mormon," but if you're asking me what I think, I would say they're just members who are convinced by a particular argument. People are different. Different ideas appeal to them.

maklelan wrote:There's no such thing as an "Internet Mormon," but if you're asking me what I think, I would say they're just members who are convinced by a particular argument. People are different. Different ideas appeal to them.

Convinced by a "right" or equally valid argument? Or by a lesser one? And why would you treat the garment stories with "skepticism"? I'm assuming that you'd be less skeptical of other kinds of stories concerning spiritual experiences. No?

Wow, this is a conundrum. I'm not an Internet Mormon, so I can't really offer any insights--only guesses--so please take what I say with a HUGE grain of salt.

Doctor Scratch wrote:[H]ow does one determine which bits of the supernatural are acceptable, and which are embarrassing?

Hmm. If I was to mind read a little, perhaps the litmus test is whether or not the claim is scientifically falsifiable? Or, barring that, the claims that haven't yet been disproven by science vs. the ones that have been?

The Mopologists at the Maxwell Institute have come out rather boldly to denounce the very Chapel Mormon-ish Rodney Meldrum as a "charlatan" and a fraud.

Yeah, and the whole thing just boggles my mind. Meldrum does nothing other than quote the words of the prophets, yet somehow those who believe the words of the prophets are charlatans and frauds? That sounds like a dangerous (or, at least, baffling) road for a believing Mormon to travel.

We might be able to attribute this to the fact that Meldrum has been more aggressive and assertive in expressing his views, but what do the Mopologists think about the LDS who genuinely believe that Meldrum's views are Church orthodoxy?

Internet Mormons would label them "ignorant," I'd bet. Not ignorant of the prophets, but ignorant of the fine scholarship and reinterpretations that the Internet Mormons have given us.

Maklelan wrote:There's no such thing as an "Internet Mormon," . . .

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet Earth, a baptism by immersion?

A. Yes
B. No

Much as I used to view my kids when they were giving primary talks, I think the internet Mormons view the chapel Mormons as so cute and adorable.

maklelan wrote:
There's no such thing as an "Internet Mormon," but if you're asking me what I think, I would say they're just members who are convinced by a particular argument. People are different. Different ideas appeal to them.

the only group I have seen deny there are "internet Mormons" are internet Mormons. Chapel Mormons have no difficulty pointing out the difference.

I think the real problem is that most apologists are embarrassed (and a little angry) when Chapel or Internet Mormons don't agree with them.

Thanks for your insights, Dr. Shades. Perhaps I was wrong to use the word "embarrassed" in my OP. I'm not quite sure what else the apologists would say, though. Maklelan says that they merely have "different" views, but again: I'm confused as to how this squares with traditional LDS culture and belief. It suggests that "orthodoxy" is more or less meaningless in the LDS context. If a Chapel Mormon believes that his garments offer physical protection, is he wrong? Saying that his beliefs are merely "different" suggests that they are also right--that it is right and correct to believe that they are legitimately protective *and* that they are nothing more than symbolic reminders. Right? Or no? I can sense that I might get accused of fashioning a false dichotomy here, so I would simply ask: Who, according to Church doctrine and/or leaders, is right here?

And if the Chapel Mormon is wrong, how should he be regarded? I think this same basic question can be applied across a whole wide spectrum of LDS beliefs. E.g., what about the guy who believes that dinosaur bones were "implanted" into the Earth's crust as a means of testing faith? Is he just "different"? Or is he drawing upon legitimate Church doctrine? And what about the person who believes in a global flood? Or the one who thinks the Ten Tribes of Israel live beneath the South Pole (or whatever)? Whack-job? Or merely "subscribing to different views"?

I have a hard time seeing how "different" can work in the traditionally authoritarian atmosphere of the LDS Church. It's not as if this is sports fandom, say, where you can shrug off someone's devotion to the Cleveland Indians, just because they have different tastes. It's not like saying that one prefers Coke to Pepsi because they're "convinced by different arguments." Church doctrine, I daresay, is not "up to interpretation" by the rank-and-file, is it?

Doctor Scratch wrote:Convinced by a "right" or equally valid argument? Or by a lesser one?

I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean no one else is allowed to.

Doctor Scratch wrote:And why would you treat the garment stories with "skepticism"?

Because they don't really strike me as particularly in line with my experience with garments and their purposes, and because there are usually better explanations, when the stories are not too unbelievable.

Doctor Scratch wrote:I'm assuming that you'd be less skeptical of other kinds of stories concerning spiritual experiences. No?

No, I'm pretty equally skeptical.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:I think the real problem is that most apologists are embarrassed (and a little angry) when Chapel or Internet Mormons don't agree with them.

It's really great to see you around, Everybody Wang Chung. I hope you've been well.