Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons thread on MA&D

[_Dr. Shades]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, John Larsen's excellent second podcast housed at Mormon Expression earned itself an article in The Salt Lake City Freethinking Examiner, titled "Is Mormon theology diverging into new directions?" which you can read if you click here.

The folks at MA&D took notice of the article and started their own thread about it titled "An Interview with Dr. Shades" which you can read if you click here.

Sure enough, just like clockwork, the vast majority of our believing Mormon friends misunderstood and misinterpreted every aspect of the Internet Mormon vs. Chapel Mormon concept that they possibly could. Reading over the thread, I can only conclude that they're either purposefully playing dumb or are simply intellectually stunted.

God forbid they actually read the article before commenting on it. And even if they couldn't comprehend the article, God forbid that they actually listen to the clear and unambiguous podcast that was its genesis.

This is made all the more baffling due to the fact that I've patiently and repeatedly corrected every single one of their errors over the space of years. I guess that once the MA&Dites make up their minds, then no power in earth, Heaven, or Hell can persuade them otherwise.

At this point, I know what you're thinking: "What are the corrections to their myriad misinterpretations, Dr. Shades?" I'd like to provide those corrections, but I'm afraid that right now I'm just too exasperated to take on that Herculean task. Maybe later I'll type up an "Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism F.A.Q." and post it to my website so that the corrections can simply be copied-and-pasted for future use.

As for now, I provided the link to that thread pretty much for your amusement, to display just how egregiously some of our friends at MA&D can utterly fail to "get it." If you didn't click on it the first time, here it is again:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=44292

Enjoy!

--Dr. Shades

.

[_Jersey Girl]

You know, I tried, but I just cannot tolerate reading that thread. The silly one-liners and such just turn me off.

Anyway, do they not get that "Internet Mormons" developed the way they have on account of the massive theological challenges they encounter online?

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think your Internet vs. chapel Mormon distinction is a useful way of looking at apologetics, Dr. Shades, and I greatly enjoyed the podcast discussion. I'd add another difference between Internet and chapel Mormonism: level of certainty in the validity of Mormon epistemology. Dr. Peterson has told me on here that "reflective latter-day saints" -- Internet Mormons? -- don't deny that spiritual experiences are interpreted through filters of culture and language, but nobody in fast and testimony meeting treats their experiences with the skepticism this obviously warrants.

[_John Larsen]

As I said on the podcast, the critics deny the dichotomy exists, then display a perfect grasp of its meaning and use it when trying to refute it.

[_Dr. Shades]

As I said on the podcast, the critics deny the dichotomy exists, then display a perfect grasp of its meaning and use it when trying to refute it.

That's an excellent point, John. It's also utterly bizarre to behold.

[_BobAliceEve]

Yes, but there are three groups and not two.

The first group is those who do not understand the religion. The third is those who do not understand current science. The middle and second group is those who understand both.

I wonder which group I am in. Time will tell.

I would very much enjoy seeing your list of "corrections" in a FAQ.

[_John Larsen]

Yes, but there are three groups and not two.

The first group is those who do not understand the religion. The third is those who do not understand current science. The middle and second group is those who understand both.

I wonder which group I am in. Time will tell.

I would very much enjoy seeing your list of "corrections" in a FAQ.

Shades makes clear in the podcast that an individual can be in both groups. Thus the groups represent rhetorical modes or "faces" of the Church by its members. I am sure that most internet Mormons are perfectly behaved chapel Mormons on Sunday.

[_BobAliceEve]

Is there more than the few paragraphs at the link (under the dozen plus pictures)? I ask because I don't see any place where "Shades makes clear in the podcast that an individual can be in both groups."

I see the point of the article though I have to disagree that there is a lasting divergence. I think that everyone will eventually understand that:
- not all Native Americans are Israelites (DNA proves it) (1)
- there were many people "here" when Lehi arrived (1)
- a flood that can move a ship from Missouri to a mountain in Iraq is not local (2)
- unless a prophet is quoting God it is an opinion, however valid
- that the gold plates were moved to "Cumorah" (3)
- Samson was foreordained to be a prophet but failed miserably

(1) if one projects a 5-fold increase in population every 40 years then clearly more people died in early battles than would have been alive with only Lehi's family
(2) even allowing for the division of the solid earth mass during the flood
(3) writings from many nations will be "moved" to "here" and the plates clearly are not "here" today

I can not combine the groups as you suggested. There are those who have no interest in the church beyond personal salvation. There are those who want salvation but enjoy a stretching conversation now and then. There are those who want to fit in with "science". The first two groups are distinct. While the third may show up at church they can not be logically included in either of the two groups.

Your thoughts please.

[_Inconceivable]

John & Shades,

Great podcast.

As you pointed out, the distinction is quite clear between the two religeons (chapel vs. internet).

But I suppose it never occurred to me that the GA's have always been ignorant chapel Mormons - at least when they have been speaking the mind and will of the Mormon God - who, Himself is an ignorant chapel Mormon.

Brilliant point.

As a chapel Mormon, I always believed in my heart that the so called Mormons that ran Sunstone (and the other groups) were either looking way beyond the mark or wolves in sheep's clothing. The effects of which only led to the destruction of faith in chapel Mormonism - the only Mormonism taught in scriptures and the pulpit.

When I crossed paths with an intellectual (pre-internet), they always seemed to look down upon my belief and adherence in the basics, considering my mindset and convictions as naïve, un-educated and ignorant. They haven't changed at all. Only they are called apologists now.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

A "summing up" found on MAD. Each is false.

-- A schism has occured in the LDS Church and there is an new offshoot religion

-- The new form of Mormonism is denying the basics of traditional Mormonism

-- Internet Mormonism is a dicotomy to chapel Mormonism

-- The difference between the two can be categorized and measured

-- You can assign a person as an internet or chaple Mormon by a quantifiable process

-- If you become exposed to nuanced thinking about Mormon apologetic issues, you must either apostatize or become join the Internet Mormon religion

-- That there is no normal spectrum of doctrinal beliefs in Mormonism...that there are only polar extremes

Each is addressed and essentially refuted in the interview. Correct me if I am wrong, Shades.