Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

[_EAllusion]

This isn't about conservative/liberal; I was only drawing a parallel to help you see what this is about.

No, your examples of what are Chapel and Internet are generally just what people call thelogically conservative vs. liberal approaches within a faith.* What's supposed to give your terminology some unique worth is that it is in reference to subgroups of belief within the faith that have developed in the response to certain theological challenges. That's why you can get away with saying "Internet Mormons think X but Chapel Mormons think Y." If all that becomes is a loose spectrum that identifies more liberal and conservative stances on either end, then why should anyone care about your terminology? Moreover, this would contradict a fair amount of what you have already written on the subject where you clearly are referring to more coherent groups of belief that have developed out of competing theological approaches.

I'm more willing to forgive Gad here mainly because I think he really is just employing the terms because he likes how they annoy apologists he interacts with. He is aware he is just referring to certain kinds of strained apologetics that concede more to secular knowledge to defend the faith and diverge substantially with what a lot of LDS think "in the pews" or preach from positions of authority.

If I'm to take you at face value here, however, then I don't see the benefit of saying "Internet Mormon" when I can say, "Theologically liberal Mormon." While you clearly incorporated social liberalism and conservatism in this dichtomy before, let's just assume you say, "liberal also carries social connotations I want to avoid." Just because a Mormon is liberal in one way, that doesn't necessarily imply they are in another. The term "theologically" is doing the work for us there.

*It bears mentioning that Mormon culture is so fundamentalist that being liberal by its standards doesn't necessarily correspond with being liberal by broader standards. By liberal and conservative, I mean relative to the spectrum within the faith.

[_Dr. Shades]

He is aware he is just referring to certain kinds of strained apologetics that concede more to secular knowledge to defend the faith and diverge substantially with what a lot of LDS think "in the pews" or preach from positions of authority.

Right. That's the whole point.

[_EAllusion]

Right. That's the whole point.

You're not making a distinction between "Internet Apologetics" and "Chapel Apologetics" which really are just shades of liberal and conservative apologetics. You're making a distinction betwen groups of people where one theologically defined group goes to certain kinds of apologetics and another goes to the other. But, as I keep reiterating, that distinction isn't necessarily the case. People very well could have a more buffet approach to the matter.

[_Dr. Shades]

You're not making a distinction between "Internet Apologetics" and "Chapel Apologetics" which really are just shades of liberal and conservative apologetics.

Not making a distinction!?!?!? Not making a distinction!?!?!?

Just what on earth do you think the website spends much of its time doing??

You're making a distinction betwen groups of people where one theologically defined group goes to certain kinds of apologetics and another goes to the other. But, as I keep reiterating, that distinction isn't necessarily the case. People very well could have a more buffet approach to the matter.

Of course. I've been careful to point that out from the very, very beginning.

Glad to see you starting to get up-to-speed.

[_EAllusion]

Not making a distinction!?!?!? Not making a distinction!?!?!?

Just what on earth do you think the website spends much of its time doing??

Making a distinction between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. Surely you recognize the difference between an apologetic and a person. You've defined this thing called an "Internet Mormon" who is defined in terms of a set theological/apologetic approaches she takes which we'll call "Internet Mormonism". If you wish to abandon that, go for it. I know at one point you were reduced to arguing that an Internet Mormon is someone who takes a liberal stance on just one of an arbitrary amount of listed issues. Why? Lord knows.

Ok. Now we're left with different apologetic approaches on a variety of issues, some of which are relatively conservative and some of which are relatively liberal. Now, tell me, what does the addition of your terminology bring to the table?

Of course. I've been careful to point that out from the very, very beginning.

Glad to see you starting to get up-to-speed.

I think in an effort to defend yourself, you don't always produce a coherent picture of what you are talking about. I already mentioned that in a separate thread. I'm aware that as I go after one version of the argument, a different one is going to pop up.

[_Gadianton]

EA brings up another good one, how to deal with the fundamentalist tendencies of some apologists, such as those who question evolution, how does that integrate with throwing out the global flood etc.?

In fact, I struggled with this a lot many years ago on Z where I wrote a post on Hugh Nibley as a Chapel Mormon, and now I consider him the founder of Internet Mormonism. Hugh Nibley was skeptical of evolution, made fun of it. He wasn't a fan of the apostate LGT at all. But he had no problem throwing out the Global flood. He had other weird ideas as well. For instance, he talked a lot about the atonement counteracting the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is just embarrassing, he'd throw in comments about "OH radicals" discussing resurrection and made it clear enough that even though he was talking fast, hustling kind of talk, that he wasn't just being figurative and he really had a chemical level testimony of how the atonement works.

Half of my answer is that the apologists for whom which Nibley is a paradigm, are generally speaking antiquities/humanities types and their interest is in "scholarly" study of the scriptures. Granted, this usually results in some messed up stuff, but their understanding of antiquities is much better than science. A 6 day creation and the flood are just so stupid that they can't help reject it. Disbelieving evolution isn't nearly as "stupid", I had a terrible time accepting evolution and it made me feel better when Richard Dawkins said he did too. I think the apologists probably do think overall they are OK with science even if they throw the Kuhn switch now and again simply because they don't understand science very well.

The second half is that to the extent Nibley disbelieved the LGT had nothing to do with respect for the brethren and pronouncements of the prophets, but scholarly disagreement. I dare say the same holds true for evolution. The Internet Mormons would have no problem sending the brethren down the river on evolution if they needed to, they just don't really understand it so typical apologetic tactics don't get triggered. But even still, DCP for instance though he takes jabs at Evolution, has admitted recently to believing it. Even an uncomfortable, highly qualified and reserved agreement is still and agreement.

As Shades has said, the Internet Mormon is committed more to the scriptures than church leaders.

[_EAllusion]

If you try to carve out some consistency in his history on the topic, DCP believes in evolution like Kevin G. believes in evolution. Maybe - maybe - he might go as far as a Micheal Behe. Chances are he'll just refer to basic aspects of modern evolutionary theory as Darwinian fundamentalism, neo-Darwinism, or some other similar misguided label, and really just be asserting that he believes in common descent when he's not endorsing poor criticisms of it. That would be in keeping with Discovery Institute fellows he's an expressed fan of and repeats arguments from.

If you want to reduce the term "Internet Mormon" into anyone who tosses out some traditionally taught stance of the prophets in preference for science, higher criticism, or societal ethical progress, I think you can nail down many LDS with at least one thing. No LDS I know would escape this. I don't see how that is useful. Moreover, this still doesn't explain why this nomenclature is preferred.

Perhaps you want to say an Internet Mormon is someone whose natural inclination is to go with scholarship when they see a conflict between traditional Mormon thought and scholarship. I first would say this oversimplifies things. It's more about levels of concession to scholarship. An old earth creationist concedes more than a young earth one, but neither are exactly in tune with academia. I think you can find parallels with this in LDS apologia. Second, I don't think there is a unifying inclination so much as different approaches to different topics. The end result as you correctly point out is mediated in part by how seriously they take what would be the scholarly view, but it's also mediated by how seriously they take a traditional view as prophetic. If it's serious enough, they might just write a heavily footnoted, lengthy essay that rejects the scientific view by arguing "Problem of induction! Scientists are sometimes wrong!" Third, the to extent this accommodates 1 and 2, I don't see how this is different than just talking about a spectrum of theological conservatism vs. liberalism.

[_Gadianton]

If you want to reduce the term "Internet Mormon" into anyone who tosses out some traditionally taught stance of the prophets in preference for science, higher criticism, or societal ethical progress, I think you can nail down many LDS with at least one thing.

No, more like anyone whose personal gospel paradigm revolves around the "tossing out" of traditional understanding, not merely the "one off". But not tossing out in a normal progressive liberal way, but tossing out in a cover-up way, with a fundamentalist stance toward the "truth of Mormonism" such that any scenery can and should be arranged to make the portrait look right.

As I've been saying, I believe the typical Internet Mormon is anti-societal ethical progress.

[_harmony]

As I've been saying, I believe the typical Internet Mormon is anti-societal ethical progress.

Care to start over again on this one? I don't understand what you just said. An Internet Mormon is anti society?

[_Gadianton]

What I mean is more often than not, Internet Mormons are anti-progress. They are more often than not very anti-gay, not hot on womens issues, pro-life, endorse waterboarding, probably wear white shirts on Sunday, and probably have a melt-down over two earrings. Contrast this with Poll's "Liahona" Mormons who would be socially progressive.