Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation

[_Dr Exiled]

In 2002 I had moved into a new area in the Salt Lake Valley and had entered a new singles ward. I was asked to teach Elder's quorum some time after having moved into the ward (could have been a year or two later as far as I can recall now) and as a bad internet Mormon I strayed from the material and taught what, as I recall, amounted to what came out in the Race and the Priesthood essay--that the ban originated from those members and leaders who were racists and not from any known revelation; that the explanations of the ban, though often spoken authoritatively, were wrong and thus aren't effective and have become offensive to our modern ears; that BY was the main culprit in beginning the ban; and that leaders, as McConkie put it, were speaking with less light and knowledge on the topic, when they spoke about it, than they should have.

I reported my teaching experience on an internet site only to be told, as time went by that I was an internet Mormon opposed to a chapel Mormon. I took offense, not wanting to see distinction and labels put upon me and my fellow church goers even though in some ways I knew I was seeing things differently. I recall arguing that the distinction is too hard to evaluate since as it turns out individual people are too complex to fit neatly in either category. Too many Mormons who frequent the internet sites and boards common to Mormon-related internet chat have positions and ideas defined as chapel Mormons and too many chapel Mormons hold closely to views found in both camps as well.

Looking back though, I am quite impressed that Shades put this out there, and articulated these observations so long ago. There was obviousness to it, even then, and I refused to see it and acknowledge it. I shall eat some crow.

Dr. Shades is a man ahead of his time. I think Ballard somewhat acknowledged the comparison with his stay in the boat speech a while back: Stay in the chapel where our false narrative reigns and don't venture out into that dangerous internet area where you could drown in a sea of reality.

[_Tator]

Because issues raised by former or dissident Saints threaten the Church, Mormon apologists engage in a kind of surveillance of dissident groups. When asked how they gauge what issues to address on their website, Scott Gordon explained that among other things, several FairMormon volunteers “monitor” various Mormon-related message boards (particularly those Gordon calls “hostile” and “anti-Mormon”), and then address issues that are frequently cited in
those venues.

This surveillance does not go unheeded. Members of dissident groups are cognizant that there are often "moles" in their midst, which they attribute to a Mormon culture of tattling rooted in a history of peer surveillance: since at least the mid 1980s, the Church has sanctioned a clandestine Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC), tasked with monitoring other Mormons (primarily but not exclusively their mediated writings related to the Church) through reliance on tips or complaints from other members, and then passing information to local leaders for potential disciplinary action (see Religious News Service 1992:5B, Quinn 1997:311, FairMormon 2014). By design, the SCMC has operated so surreptitiously that among some members it is thought to be little more than a folktale or byproduct of anti-Mormon rumor mongering. Although the existence of the SCMC has been confirmed by the Church, the scale of its operations has never been clarified or even hinted at, but that may be beside the point; just by virtue of its existence, it works as a sort of Panopticon for members, especially in online groups where potential lurkers might be operatives for the SCMC. On the other side of the coin, some orthodox members take surveillance and tattling as an acceptable and even institutionally encouraged behavior, effectively electing themselves to the SCMC by reporting suspicious or unorthodox behaviors and words to Church leaders. Members who are concerned about potential disciplinary action know to self-censor their speech to avoid the network of tattling that might lead to bishop notification of online dissent.

It is information like this why I stated in the Pasterson plagiarism thread that the SCMC knows about Pasterson's plagiarism. Everyone who is anybody in the church, GAs, paid apologists, BYU officials, etc. know about Pasterson's plagiarism. They enable, protect, condone, encourage and give it their blessing. They have no honesty or integrity anyway no more than DupeCutPasterson himself.

What a farce the church is!

[_Yahoo Bot]

It seems to be written with equanimity. However, why it was accepted as a thesis project in the first place is a little mystifying but I suppose there's lots of insular and odd topics used.

The evolution of strategies for establishing and challenging religious identities in cyberspace is not exactly an "insular" or "odd" topic. It is a huge phenomenon that is unfolding before the eyes of millions every day.

I guess if people write dissertations about a three word phrase in Milton, this isn't unusual.

[_Kishkumen]

I guess if people write dissertations about a three word phrase in Milton, this isn't unusual.

Thank you for continuing to undermine your minuscule credibility.

[_Ceeboo]

If anyone is curious why people are mentioning me so often, it's due in part to an essay I wrote back in 2003 or so in which I more or less identified the same things:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

Yeah - I read that here at MDB some years ago and I remember being quite impressed by it.
Reading it for a second time just now, I find it even more impressive than I did back then.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_moksha]

... the Mopologists' "fan club"? (How extensive is that fan club, I wonder?)

The Mormon Apologetics Fan Club comes in four tiers depending on both the awareness that Mormon apologetics exist and financial contributions of the Fan Club members.

1. Backers - This group does not contribute financially and does not explicitly know that such apologetics exist, but they are presumed to be favorable towards such apologetics if they knew about these valiant efforts. This is by far the largest group.

2. Boosters - No contributions, but they know that Mormon apologetics exist and they approve of it.

3. Booster-Backers - May or may not financially contribute, but they know about Mormon apologetic efforts and have even visited the FAIRMormon website, read posts on the ever popular Mormon D&D board, and followed Dr. Peterson's column in the Deseret News.

4. Presidential Booster-Backers - Moderate to large financial donations. This group is conversant with cutting-edge Mormon apologetics. They have books by treasured authors, such as Dr. Peterson and others on their bookshelves. Many receive thank you letters from FAIRMormon and the Mormon Interpreter. A select number are on Dr. Peterson's Christmas card list. This group receives the full blessings and benefits that come with being a Presidential Booster-Backer in the Mormon Apologetics Fan Club. They are entitled to free valet parking at the annual FAIRMormon Conference held at the Higbee-Lee Ford Dealership Showroom in Springville, Utah each August.

Hope that helps.

[_deacon blues]

but far and away what interested me most was the disconnect between what I experienced in person at the ward and in these homes, and what I learned about Mormon identities on the internet.

I add my echo to everyone else's: Kudos, DoctorCamNC4Me, for finding this and bringing it to our attention! I ain't gonna lie: It feels good, man!

If anyone is curious why people are mentioning me so often, it's due in part to an essay I wrote back in 2003 or so in which I more or less identified the same things:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

It would be interesting to see what percentage of Mormons would answer each of the differentiations as Chapel Mormons and as Internet Mormons. The essay itself is prophetic. Cool, Shades.

[_The Dude]

It seems to be written with equanimity. However, why it was accepted as a thesis project in the first place is a little mystifying but I suppose there's lots of insular and odd topics used.

Insular and odd, that's the risk you take when you do a project on Mormonism. Also a big risk with a Mormon-related topic: will anyone care in the wider world?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think I am correct. Memories fade.

I imagine you duties as the "director" of the Mormon Studies program at Claremont drain your mental energies.

[_Symmachus]

I am heartened that Dr. Shades is receiving the recognition he has long deserved—particular in light of the slander he generally endures from some quarters. And it confirms to me that the Mormon Interpreter can only aspire to be the Cassius University of believing Chapelites.

I guess if people write dissertations about a three word phrase in Milton, this isn't unusual.

Thank you for continuing to undermine your minuscule credibility.

In fairness, the great Hellenist Cornelis Ruijgh wrote a 1,100 page book on a single particle in Homer that is only two letters long (the particle τε, in Autour de “τε épique”: Études sur la syntaxe grecque). Perhaps finding this a bit excessive, a student of his opted to limit his own study of a Homeric particle to 300 pages, and he increased the number of letters he was interested from 2 to 3 (focusing on the particle περ, in Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and Description of the Particle περ).