FAIRwiki vs Dr. Shades

[_TrashcanMan79]

One of the things that I've always found funny about Shades's dichotomy is that, while I'm probably the archetypal "internet Mormon" -- adherent, according to Scratch, of an altogether distinct religion -- whenever I've taken one of Scratch's little diagnostic tests I always come out quite squarely as a "chapel Mormon."

Me too.

Anyone have a link to one of these "tests"?

edit Found it! here

[_Some Schmo]

One of the things that I've always found funny about Shades's dichotomy is that, while I'm probably the archetypal "internet Mormon" -- adherent, according to Scratch, of an altogether distinct religion -- whenever I've taken one of Scratch's little diagnostic tests I always come out quite squarely as a "chapel Mormon."

It doesn't take a genius to answer the questions in such a way as to get the result you want if you are at all familiar with the dichotomy. Your proclamation is meaningless.

[_Dr. Shades]

Have you seen this, Shades?

Not in its current form, no. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Can we anticipate a response to FAIR's hardhitting analysis and decisive demolishment of your every point?

Sure. Why not? The Dude helpfully saved me time by addressing one of the more obvious points, but here are three more that deserve attention. From the FAIRwiki:

Many of the issues that Mr. Gallentine thought showed a difference between "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons" are not fundamental to Mormon belief.

Yeah, but the rest of them are. They conveniently omitted that fact.

Another issue Mr. Gallentine ignored is that these differences in perspective existed long before the Internet allowed Latter-day Saints to discuss various views, and will continue long afterwards.

Ignored? IGNORED?? IGNORED???

On my website itself, I clearly stated, long, long before the FAIRwiki was even thought of: "[T]he adherents of these separate schools of thought can be termed 'Internet Mormons' and 'Chapel Mormons'--not because of the only places they inhabit, of course, but because of the places one is most likely to encounter them. Lest anyone be confused, I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism--at least in its embryonic form--has been around much longer than the Internet itself has. Again, the name 'Internet Mormonism' merely calls attention to the place at which one is most likely to encounter this brand of Mormon thought. It also pays tribute to the fact that the Internet was the catalyst for the recent explosion of this particular brand of Mormonism."

But yet again, they omitted key information that didn't serve their polemical agenda. Typical FAIR.

I got a kick out of it.

So did I, especially this bit:

[t]here isn't some kind of tension that exists between two groups which are clearly delineated — rather, they blend into each other. . . When people complain about not being able to determine what Mormons (collectively) believe, the real issue they miss is that the Church does not tell its members what to believe. There is a lot of room for divergent views, and the Church thrives on the idea that its members are a vital part of the search for truth.

That slick bit of deception can be refuted with a mere two words: Rodney Meldrum.

They did, however, do one thing right: They brought to my attention the fact that my Sunstone presentation is online for all the world to hear. If anyone wants to hear the voice behind the words, you can listen to it at:

http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL04233.mp3

Skip ahead to 14:05; that's when I start speaking.

I'm wondering why they felt the need to disclose your real name???

Probably for the same reason that rcrocket feels the need to report Skippy the Dead to the California Bar Association.

Shades, delete this thread if you are not comfortable with the personal information it reveals, and please accept my apology for my thoughtlessness.

No biggie. I sort of had to decloak anyway in order to present at Sunstone.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It doesn't take a genius to answer the questions in such a way as to get the result you want if you are at all familiar with the dichotomy. Your proclamation is meaningless.

My "proclamation" wasn't aimed at deep thinkers like you and Infymus and boaz & lidia and poor antishock8.

[_Trevor]

I have not found myself fully agreeing with the essay. In fact, I have argued against it. Still, it is interesting to think about the possible differences in experience and belief that might arise from divergent experiences. And, I do have a difficult time understanding why an apologetic organization would be troubled enough by this to take the time to attempt a refutation.

[Guest]

I have not found myself fully agreeing with the essay. In fact, I have argued against it. Still, it is interesting to think about the possible differences in experience and belief that might arise from divergent experiences. And, I do have a difficult time understanding why an apologetic organization would be troubled enough by this to take the time to attempt a refutation.

I think the concern is that it tries to split Mormons into two groups. One group the "Internet Mormon" have some ideas but the rest are a mass of ignorant people. Since everyone they meet on the Internet (where they probably do much of their interaction with LDS) is probably an Internet Mormon the categories are safe. I've met very few people I would classify as "Chapel Mormons" according to Shades definition and most of those are the zealots on the fringe of the religion. The core of the Church (the people who get the difficult, time-consuming callings, and live the Gospel) spend a great deal of time studying the Gospel critically. They're looking for things they've missed, new notions that will unlock new understanding, and doctrines to replace inferior placeholder knowledge.

Edit: In practice this means that when someone on the Internet gives a defense of the Church the critic can state that most of the Church does not agree with the apologist. This is true but mostly because we're not a homogenous group. The critic making the "Internet Mormon" into an extreme example of his faith allows him to perceive him as an aberration and dismiss him as an atypical Mormon. I don't think there is a typical Mormon and I'm grateful for it.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

You bet. And although I didn't really think the FAIR article warranted serious attention, I've enjoyed your response very much. Thanks for humoring me!

[_Trevor]

I think the concern is that it tries to split Mormons into two groups. One group the "Internet Mormon" have some ideas but the rest are a mass of ignorant people. Since everyone they meet on the Internet (where they probably do much of their interaction with LDS) is probably an Internet Mormon the categories are safe. I've met very few people I would classify as "Chapel Mormons" according to Shades definition and most of those are the zealots on the fringe of the religion. The core of the Church (the people who get the difficult, time-consuming callings, and live the Gospel) spend a great deal of time studying the Gospel critically. They're looking for things they've missed, new notions that will unlock new understanding, and doctrines to replace inferior placeholder knowledge.

Edit: In practice this means that when someone on the Internet gives a defense of the Church the critic can state that most of the Church does not agree with the apologist. This is true but mostly because we're not a homogenous group. The critic making the "Internet Mormon" into an extreme example of his faith allows him to perceive him as an aberration and dismiss him as an atypical Mormon. I don't think there is a typical Mormon and I'm grateful for it.

I take your point, but I think you are oversimplifying the content of his essay.

[_The Nehor]

I think the concern is that it tries to split Mormons into two groups. One group the "Internet Mormon" have some ideas but the rest are a mass of ignorant people. Since everyone they meet on the Internet (where they probably do much of their interaction with LDS) is probably an Internet Mormon the categories are safe. I've met very few people I would classify as "Chapel Mormons" according to Shades definition and most of those are the zealots on the fringe of the religion. The core of the Church (the people who get the difficult, time-consuming callings, and live the Gospel) spend a great deal of time studying the Gospel critically. They're looking for things they've missed, new notions that will unlock new understanding, and doctrines to replace inferior placeholder knowledge.

Edit: In practice this means that when someone on the Internet gives a defense of the Church the critic can state that most of the Church does not agree with the apologist. This is true but mostly because we're not a homogenous group. The critic making the "Internet Mormon" into an extreme example of his faith allows him to perceive him as an aberration and dismiss him as an atypical Mormon. I don't think there is a typical Mormon and I'm grateful for it.

I take your point, but I think you are oversimplifying the content of his essay.

I think the topic of his essay is a much more egregious oversimplification.

[_Trevor]

I think the topic of his essay is a much more egregious oversimplification.

The topic? What a strange thing to say.