No Such Thing as Internet Mormons?

[_William Schryver]

rcrocket:

Yet, I learned almost all these things in seminary (well, not DNA -- that was recent). And, Deseret Books publishes books on all these topics.

If this stuff is in seminary manuals and in books published by and sold by Deseret Books, what kind of program would you suggest instead?

I, too, have not learned anything "new" from the internet regarding LDS church history, practices, etc., that I didn't already know from reading the History of the Church and other books purchased at Deseret Book. I never bought anything from Signature Books until after I was exposed to anti-Mormon rhetoric on the internet, but the Signatori haven't revealed anything new to me, they just have their particular slant on things.

That said, I know that most LDS don't bother reading anything more demanding than Harry Potter. I know active LDS who believe all kinds of silly things; all kinds of absurd Mormon folklore, faith-promoting stories, etc., etc., etc. And I know many active LDS who are essentially 100% ignorant about the history of the church. And yet, I would estimate that 99% of all the so-called "controversial" topics are referenced, to one degree or another, in the church-published History of the Church, or within the pages of the Ensign. I read all seven volumes of the DHC right after my mission. Great stuff. I loved it. I quickly came to realize that Joseph Smith wasn't the perfect, quasi-mythological character that some like to make him into. That made me like him even more.

I don't know what to say about those who act like the church was "hiding" things from them. I never thought that at all.

One thing I have concluded is that the internet is producing a much more orthodox Latter-day Saint for the future. Yes, there is certainly a movement afoot that is commonly characterized as "New Order Mormons." But I view them as a short-lived phenomenon. Sooner, rather than later, all the NOMs will make the transition to unbeliever. They will not have the stamina to form a viable and continuing movement. But the Latter-day Saint who confronts the easily-obtainable information available on the internet, and who digests it and makes sense of it within the paradigm of his continuing belief, will come out of the process a much more deeply-rooted and orthodox LDS than he was at the start.

[_Master Bates]

How about that Tom Trails filmstrip episode where Tom discusses early church polyandry, blood atonement, and how Tom's skin is getting lighter every day?

Bates

[_Jason Bourne]

Yet, I learned almost all these things in seminary (well, not DNA -- that was recent).

You learned about Polyandry, blood atonement, details on Mountain Meadow, changes in the revelations between the BoC and 1835 D&C, Adam God and so on in seminary? I am skeptical.

And, Deseret Books publishes books on all these topics.

Today you may be able to find books at Deseret book that covers some of these. I agree. I bought Mormon Enigma from Deseret Books. I doubt thought there were many books at Deseret Book say in the late 70's and early 80's that covered much if any of these topics. Mormon Enigma inititally was banned from Deseret Book.

If this stuff is in seminary manuals and in books published by and sold by Deseret Books, what kind of program would you suggest instead?

Please provide references and source to current or even prior seminary and even institute literature where the items I mentioned above are covered. Why not start with the story of Zina Diantha Hunington Jacob Smith Young?


Jason Bourne-the anonymous hypocrite -this so you don't have to use that argument anymore on this thread. I have fessed up to it for you.

[_CaliforniaKid]

One thing I have concluded is that the internet is producing a much more orthodox Latter-day Saint for the future. Yes, there is certainly a movement afoot that is commonly characterized as "New Order Mormons." But I view them as a short-lived phenomenon. Sooner, rather than later, all the NOMs will make the transition to unbeliever. They will not have the stamina to form a viable and continuing movement. But the Latter-day Saint who confronts the easily-obtainable information available on the internet, and who digests it and makes sense of it within the paradigm of his continuing belief, will come out of the process a much more deeply-rooted and orthodox LDS than he was at the start.

Sadly, you're probably right. This is what has happened in mainline churches, as well. Liberal theologies tend to decline and to generate reactionary fundamentalist groups that increasingly stress faith over science and confession over critical thought.

[_Jason Bourne]

I, too, have not learned anything "new" from the internet regarding LDS church history, practices, etc., that I didn't already know from reading the History of the Church and other books purchased at Deseret Book. I never bought anything from Signature Books until after I was exposed to anti-Mormon rhetoric on the internet, but the Signatori haven't revealed anything new to me, they just have their particular slant on things.

Yet you cannot demonstrate that the average lazy LDS learns any of this in regular Church and seminary not with standing Bob's claim.

That said, I know that most LDS don't bother reading anything more demanding than Harry Potter. I know active LDS who believe all kinds of silly things; all kinds of absurd Mormon folklore, faith-promoting stories, etc., etc., etc. And I know many active LDS who are essentially 100% ignorant about the history of the church. And yet, I would estimate that 99% of all the so-called "controversial" topics are referenced, to one degree or another, in the church-published History of the Church, or within the pages of the Ensign. I read all seven volumes of the DHC right after my mission. Great stuff. I loved it. I quickly came to realize that Joseph Smith wasn't the perfect, quasi-mythological character that some like to make him into. That made me like him even more.

And they are ignorant because they do not do the leg work on their own. I agree that LDS should study more on their own. But should they have to in order to find that non quasi mythical character of Joseph Smith that they get from just relying on LDS Church manuals and Sunday instruction? I mean really you all but admitted that this is what they get at Church.

I don't know what to say about those who act like the church was "hiding" things from them. I never thought that at all.

Hiding is too strong. Not disclosing is better.

O

ne thing I have concluded is that the internet is producing a much more orthodox Latter-day Saint for the future. Yes, there is certainly a movement afoot that is commonly characterized as "New Order Mormons." But I view them as a short-lived phenomenon. Sooner, rather than later, all the NOMs will make the transition to unbeliever. They will not have the stamina to form a viable and continuing movement. But the Latter-day Saint who confronts the easily-obtainable information available on the internet, and who digests it and makes sense of it within the paradigm of his continuing belief, will come out of the process a much more deeply-rooted and orthodox LDS than he was at the start.

Oh I don't know. I think you will see more and more NOMishness in members. I think many like me wil understand there are major problems but they still love and care about the LDS Church and want to be a part of it. But you may be right. It may go your way. But I think there will not be many of you left. We are seeing a lot lost in the process now. And at least in the US and other more educated areas of the world the convert rate is dismal. Where I live it is so bad, almost European in numbers- that the Church has decided to cut back the number of missionaries they send to our region and send them to more productive areas of the world.

[_Dr. Shades]

One thing I have concluded is that the internet is producing a much more orthodox Latter-day Saint for the future. . . But the Latter-day Saint who confronts the easily-obtainable information available on the internet, and who digests it and makes sense of it within the paradigm of his continuing belief, will come out of the process a much more deeply-rooted and orthodox LDS than he was at the start.

I disagree with you on that count. Such a person will indeed be "deeply-rooted"--since he or she will have invented new ways to ignore the man behind the curtain--but such a person will not be orthodox by any stretch of the imagination. See the bottom half of my signature line, below, to understand what I mean.

[_William Schryver]

JB:

I think you will see more and more NOMishness in members. I think many like me wil understand there are major problems but they still love and care about the LDS Church and want to be a part of it. But you may be right. It may go your way. But I think there will not be many of you left. We are seeing a lot lost in the process now. And at least in the US and other more educated areas of the world the convert rate is dismal.

I have heard this opinion voiced often in various places on the internet. In fact, I had almost come to believe it. However, the actual data do not seem to concur with you. Actual growth, in terms of stakes (the statistic I consider most reflective of real growth), is quite vibrant, as evidenced by the annual report delivered last Saturday afternoon in General Conference.

Where I live it is so bad, almost European in numbers- that the Church has decided to cut back the number of missionaries they send to our region and send them to more productive areas of the world.

Well, I don’t know where you live. But your insinuation that the growth rate of the church has stagnated seems to be contradicted by the actual data. The growth is not at the rates of the early 1990s (rates that I believe were artificially inflated on account of ill-advised missionary practices – since ceased), but the growth is steady and quite substantial. There is no evidence to substantiate your suggestion of stagnation.

Dr. Shades:

I disagree with you on that count. Such a person will indeed be "deeply-rooted"--since he or she will have invented new ways to ignore the man behind the curtain--but such a person will not be orthodox by any stretch of the imagination. See the bottom half of my signature line, below, to understand what I mean.

Well, we all know about your vested interest in this particular topic. But, as I have always argued (since having first read your seminal essay on the subject), your understanding of what constitutes, respectively, a “chapel” and an “internet” Mormon is flawed in many ways. The so-called “chapel Mormon” is not nearly as ignorant as you are inclined to believe, and the so-called “internet Mormon” is not nearly as heterodox as you are inclined to believe. Your argument is founded on a presumption that the extremes constitute the mean. You’re wrong.

A better authority on the question is someone like me who has been constantly in touch with the “chapel Mormon” mentality even as I have come into contact and grown intimately familiar with the “internet Mormon” over the course of the past few years.

[_wenglund]

Hi Californiakid,

Since you assume there is something to the Internet/Chapel Mormon typology, could you go beyond philosophizing about the possible affects of the internet media on Mormonism, and actually describe the presumed typology--specifically, how you differentiate so-called Internet Mormons from Chapel Mormons.

My reason for asking is, when Shades was pressed a few years ago to do the same by a few of us apologist, the criteria he came up with ended up registering several of us as Chapel Mormons--including me (which I found interesting since I have been quite active on the internet since back in the days of archie, gopher, ftp, text-only browsers prior to Mosaic, newsgroups via the internet portals of local bulletin boards--ie.Lucas, etc.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Californiakid,

Since you assume there is something to the Internet/Chapel Mormon typology, could you go beyond philosophizing about the possible affects of the internet media on Mormonism, and actually describe the presumed typology--specifically, how you differentiate so-called Internet Mormons from Chapel Mormons.

My reason for asking is, when Shades was pressed a few years ago to do the same by a few of us apologist, the criteria he came up with ended up registering several of us as Chapel Mormons--including me (which I found interesting since I have been quite active on the internet since back in the days of archie, gopher, ftp, text-only browsers prior to Mosaic, newsgroups via the internet portals of local bulletin boards--ie.Lucas, etc.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

I think I would define Internet Mormons more in terms of their actual use of Internet media than Dr. Shades does. I also think I'd stress that there are different types of online venues-- like the FAIR email list, debate boards, fellowship boards, the Bloggernacle, Outer Blogness, etc.-- and that they each have their own cultures and will not all affect people the same way. And finally, I'd stress that some people truly are more resistant than others to certain types of influence, and may not even be willing to internalize new information, let alone to alter their theological perspectives. I'm always a bit suspicious of ideological categories, because they're rarely as neat as they seem at first. But having said all of that, I think we can make a few generalizations about Mormons on the Internet. In the first place, I think they are more informed about Mormon history and theology than their chapel-dwelling brethren. Secondly, I think they are more likely to hold progressive theological positions, like the view that the Brethren can err when speaking in Conference or that there is revelation outside the Church. Thirdly, I think they tend to be more confident and more self-aware in dialoguing on religious subjects-- they are both more likely to feel their voice is legitimate and more likely to express themselves carefully/deliberately. And finally, I would estimate that they are more likely to be egalitarian in their understandings of gender, race, and religion, but less likely to have an egalitarian perspective on intelligence and education.

These, of course, are just some guesses on my part. I haven't spent a lot of time in Mormon chapels (though I did attend seminary for about 6 months), and so don't have much of a reference point against which to weigh Internet Mormonism. But based on my theoretical considerations, I would be very surprised if the many Mormons on the Internet could expose themselves to its cultures without being indelibly branded by them.

Best,

-Chris

[_Jason Bourne]

I think you will see more and more NOMishness in members. I think many like me wil understand there are major problems but they still love and care about the LDS Church and want to be a part of it. But you may be right. It may go your way. But I think there will not be many of you left. We are seeing a lot lost in the process now. And at least in the US and other more educated areas of the world the convert rate is dismal.

I have heard this opinion voiced often in various places on the internet. In fact, I had almost come to believe it. However, the actual data do not seem to concur with you. Actual growth, in terms of stakes (the statistic I consider most reflective of real growth), is quite vibrant, as evidenced by the annual report delivered last Saturday afternoon in General Conference.

The stats were reasonable and showed some increase. A few % points. But where is the question? Again, where I live in the US in the two missions that cover my area we have seen two new stakes in the past 20 years. That is all. So while there was an increase in about 45 stakes world wide my guess is most were outside the US. And 45 stakes is about 2% growth. Not stellar growth at all.

Where I live it is so bad, almost European in numbers- that the Church has decided to cut back the number of missionaries they send to our region and send them to more productive areas of the world.

Well, I don’t know where you live. But your insinuation that the growth rate of the church has stagnated seems to be contradicted by the actual data. The growth is not at the rates of the early 1990s (rates that I believe were artificially inflated on account of ill-advised missionary practices – since ceased), but the growth is steady and quite substantial. There is no evidence to substantiate your suggestion of stagnation.

Once again I was speaking about the US and other more educated countries. But over all the growth rate is not substantial but I agree it is steady. About 1.8% to 2.2 % per year for some time now. But I was addressing where I live. Baptisms in our mission run 150 maybe 200 in a good year and the is symptomatic for our area. 25 years ago it was 800 per year. It has been declining since then. In a recent meeting with our SP he said that the area president told them that due to the even ever declining rates in baptisms for our area the number of missionaries assigned to missions in our area would be declining.

Well, we all know about your vested interest in this particular topic. But, as I have always argued (since having first read your seminal essay on the subject), your understanding of what constitutes, respectively, a “chapel” and an “internet” Mormon is flawed in many ways. The so-called “chapel Mormon” is not nearly as ignorant as you are inclined to believe, and the so-called “internet Mormon” is not nearly as heterodox as you are inclined to believe. Your argument is founded on a presumption that the extremes constitute the mean. You’re wrong.

A better authority on the question is someone like me who has been constantly in touch with the “chapel Mormon” mentality even as I have come into contact and grown intimately familiar with the “internet Mormon” over the course of the past few years.

I used to argue the same thing. But recently at least two very close and active friend said to me when discussion polygamy in 1800's that they believed it was very limited and essentially used to help women who did not have husbands survive the rigor of frontier life. Both of these persons are life time dedicated and active members. I really think there is a difference.