Deal Breakers and Internet Mormonism

[_Gadianton]

Please note that I am not arguing there is a close parallel between the Orthodox/Catholic split and Chapel/Internet Mormonism, but this historical event helps us understand how seeningly small divisions in doctrine or practices can equate to drastic consequences.

FAIRWiki makes this point, one that's made often about Shades' discovery of Internet Mormonism:

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

Surely, the doctrines of faith, repentence, the atonement, the wording of the sacrament prayer, and the use of consecrated olive oil are more important and fundamental to Mormonism than geography, right?

To understand why I would say "no", let's look at a historically famous religious schism, the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths. I'll reference this website, which explains the situation from one Catholic's view.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

This writer begins:

One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. So, why the division? What caused the division?

Some of the candidate answers are:

the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist

One theological disagreement has to do with the Latin compound word filioque

practice of venerating icons

While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787,

After reading this list, we might be tempted to say that people of faith will fight over a lump of dirt if you give them the chance. On the other hand, it is in fact God himself who gets bent out of shape on matters hard to predict in advance.

At least some of these issues can be understood as deal breakers. A deal breaker doesn't have to be of insurmountable theological significance but it could hold serious implications or represent something else of greater significance. For instance, few would argue that the Book of Mormon geography is more important than the atonement of Jesus. But geography could still be a deal breaker. On ZLMB, I remember Brant Gardner once saying that if the Book of Mormon is tied to the hemispheric model, then it is probably false. And of course if it's false, then the discourses on the atonement don't matter much.

[_Sethbag]

I think that in Meldrum's mind, and in the minds of a lot of people who think like Meldrum in the church, it's Prophets, and whether their words really are true, and should be accepted and believed, that is a huge dealbreaker. If Joseph Smith said that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, then by God it was in Missouri, or Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

The Internet Mormons have excused all of this away - with IMs, almost any words and teachings of any LDS Prophet from Joseph Smith on down can be excused away as mere fallible human opinion. The Meldrumites find that to be a dealbreaker.

And, to be honest, it was a dealbreaker for me. LDS Prophets having been so wrong in the past, on so many topics, softened up the armor of my faith enough for a chink to be found in it, which at the right moment, allowed a little truth in to break the spell. According to IMs, that shouldn't have been possible, but then I reject their excuses and rationalizations. Either LDS Prophets are revealing to us stuff they got from God, and which came to them through revelation, or they aren't. As it happens, they aren't.

[_Ray A]

At least some of these issues can be understood as deal breakers. A deal breaker doesn't have to be of insurmountable theological significance but it could hold serious implications or represent something else of greater significance. For instance, few would argue that the Book of Mormon geography is more important than the atonement of Jesus. But geography could still be a deal breaker. On ZLMB, I remember Brant Gardner once saying that if the Book of Mormon is tied to the hemispheric model, then it is probably false. And of course if it's false, then the discourses on the atonement don't matter much.

I prefer to think along the lines of the concept of karma, which probably shows my "Buddhist inclinations", but even aside from that, I think there's something universally appealing about the concept of karma, and an idea that the masses feel more comfortable entertaining and expressing in common parlance.

What does that observation have to do with your post? Not much, but I think it's worth mentioning it when discussing "retribution theologies", for want of a better term. The idea of the atonement, in essence, is that one can be forgiven for sins, both of omission and comission, by accepting the idea that another person more holy than ourselves has "paid the price", but then we are bound forever and a day to worship that person - or else. That's why the atonement doesn't make much sense, in the first place. It's a "I will pay your way if you obey me" philosophy. Karma, on the other hand, is a concept wherein the person has to take full responsibility for their actions, they alone, and no one else. It's not a hard concept to understand. Let's say you choose to smoke for 30 years, but then one day decide to stop. The benefits of stopping become immediately available, for example within 24 hours your breathing will become easier. After 10-15 years your risk of cancer and heart disease reverts to the level of a non-smoker. But there's nothing magical or mysterious about this, if you make this choice. The atonement, on the other hand, offers immediate magical benefits - no cancer or heart disease risk upon immediate repentance (it's an analogy, bear that in mind). So it's not reality-based for a start, and you're going to have to believe that someone else's spilt blood can cure you of everything, and be bound to that person forever.

So here is my main point - whether or not one believes that the atonement is dependent upon a book's geography, is irrelevant. One can discount it on mere logic, without relying on a false geography to do it for them.

[_CaliforniaKid]

There were cultural and theological differences that contributed to the Great Schism, as you noted, but the bottom line in the East-West split was authority. Rome claimed primacy, and the East wasn't about to submit to that. There were many attempts to unite the two sides, some of them at least temporarily successful, but when the Crusaders sacked Byzantium that was pretty much the end of any possibility of reunion. Then the East lived under Muslim, Mongol, and Crusader dominion for several centuries, so the West sort of forgot about them. Anyway, all that's to say that I don't think the deal-breaker there was theological. It was an issue of who has the authority.

Transposing that onto your Internet Mormons analogy, we might say that the significance of geography is that it calls into question the authority of the Presidents of the Church-- which is of course utterly foundational to LDS belief.

[_The Dude]

Surely, the doctrines of faith, repentence, the atonement, the wording of the sacrament prayer, and the use of consecrated olive oil are more important and fundamental to Mormonism than geography, right?

I don't even think those doctrines are the really important ones. Shared belief in the priesthood authority is what holds them together. It's their version of "divine right."

There have already been some deal breakers in Mormonism over the practice of polygamy and some early disputes over succession. Given that Mormons have a doctrinal belief in authority and apostasy, I suspect than any "deal breakers" of significance would have to touch on who really has so-called priesthood authority. As long as Meldrum and his opponents all recognize the GAs as having the "keys to the kingdom" I don't see a split happening over an argument about geography or even something major like the atonement. Now if Monson or Packer were to take sides, then there could be a split as one side sees that the GAs are misusing their priesthood.

[_christopher]

Now if Monson or Packer were to take sides, then there could be a split as one side sees that the GAs are misusing their priesthood.

This is exactly correct or "spot on" as the saying goes, and exactly why there is even the discussion of the possibility of Chapel vs Internet Mormons. As opposed to when we grew up, you can now no longer get an authoritative answer to questions from the prophets. Up until Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophets spoke with absolute clarity and authority on "the mysteries" of life and expanded on issues when needed (heck, I have a series of books by JFS of just questions and answers). Opinion versus doctrinal teaching was not a question. The old sermons were a treasure of information unencumbered by platitudes and denials of previous teachings.

Now, because of scientific progress, and access to information, the brethren are mute and you are sooner to hear from FARMS, a law office, or a PR firm. This sucks when you really believed you had prophets amongst you teaching us the real and only truth.

[_harmony]

Now, because of scientific progress, and access to information, the brethren are mute and you are sooner to hear from FARMS, a law office, or a PR firm. This sucks when you really believed you had prophets amongst you teaching us the real and only truth.

I think the rank and file average member doesn't notice this. I'd be very surprised if the average member knows FARMS exists. I think the average rank and file member thinks things are as they always have been. I think the average rank and file member doesn't even know the books are closed, let alone that the there is a debate about where the Hill Cumorah is located.

[_christopher]

I think the rank and file average member doesn't notice this. I'd be very surprised if the average member knows FARMS exists.

I would like to think they know they are there, but just assume they are the bright guys that have objectively studied the issues, written the correct things about it to counter all the lies, so all is well and the church is true and they don't have to study an issue for themselves.

I think the average rank and file member thinks things are as they always have been. I think the average rank and file member doesn't even know the books are closed, let alone that the there is a debate about where the Hill Cumorah is located.

Agreed, but then don't these people fall into the "Chapel Mormon" category? I think the phenomena of two types of Mormons is real and the main reason is like The Dude was alluding to. Those who could authoritatively answer or give direction are now mute, whereas before they ran off at the mouth continuously.

Chris <><

[_Scottie]

I think the rank and file average member doesn't notice this. I'd be very surprised if the average member knows FARMS exists. I think the average rank and file member thinks things are as they always have been. I think the average rank and file member doesn't even know the books are closed, let alone that the there is a debate about where the Hill Cumorah is located.

The average member (Chapel Mormon) believes the Book of Mormon cruises are REALLY showing members ACTUAL Book of Mormon locations.
They believe that archeologists are finding artifacts that PROVE the Book of Mormon is true every day.

Have any of you been to the basement of the visitors center in SLC? There are quite a few "Book of Mormon artifacts" on display. Who authorized this and what makes them think these artifacts have ANYTHING to do with the Book of Mormon peoples? Yet the CM's eat this crap up!

[_The Dude]

To clarify what I'm saying:

Two things happen when the GAs are silent. 1st, you have these little controversies popping up between groups of members who still agree on one thing, which is that the GAs have the priesthood authority and the final word. 2nd, the little controversies are contained, which no grand schism among the saints, because all that really matters is that the GAs have the priesthood authority.

Only if the GAs open their mouths would there be a chance for droves of internet or chapel Mormons to get angry, run off, and create their own claim to priesthood authority (like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mentioned in the OP). So as long as the GAs don't acknowledge the internet Mormons, don't condone or criticize them, the church is safe to drift slowly on the currents of culture and belief.