Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _harmony »

Gadianton wrote: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.


So the two don't measure the same things?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _Gadianton »

you mean "internet Mormon" and "liahona"?

my view is NO!

A "liahona" might peg say, someone like...you.

A "Internet Mormon", lol, well, plenty of examples have been given.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _harmony »

Gadianton wrote:you mean "internet Mormon" and "liahona"?

my view is NO!

A "liahona" might peg say, someone like...you.

A "Internet Mormon", lol, well, plenty of examples have been given.


A Liahona, huh? Well, I always liked the idea of being a guiding light.! :cool:
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _Dr. Shades »

E Allusion, it might help if you consider Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism to be two opposing brands of conservatism. For example, both groups similarly castigate those members who don't believe the same way they do.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _EAllusion »

I pulled my "Internet Mormon on one issue" idea directly from you Shades. Let me quote it:

"Therefore, this is what I have learned: It is still proper to refer to Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism. Yet it isn't warranted to assume that just because someone advocates one aspect of Internet Mormonism that he/she will advocate all--or even most--others as well. Hence, an Internet Mormon should be considered to be someone who, at any point in time, advocates one or more Internet Mormon beliefs as the true Mormonism--in spite of the Chapel mainstream--rather than someone who would score 13-24 on the 0-24 scale."

- Dr. Shades

-------------

Gad -

Out of curiosity, would you consider Nghthawke an Internet Mormon despite her tending to have some pretty liberal social views that parallel with her support of mainstream Canadian politics? Is her liberalism here disqualifying? I ask, because I'm pretty sure I've seen you call her an Internet Mormon. :p

What about a Kevin Christensen? He's kinda liberal for a Mormon.

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.


Don't almost all LDS approach issues that might be troubling for them by finding some balance between the traditional stance and what secular knowledge is saying based upon what they think ultimately works? I think that refers to most people you'd call Chapel Mormons just the same. It's not easy to get a beat on the gradient of thought here. I don't see what coherent space you are carving out for the terminology that is warranted and can't already be explained in terms of older more apt terms.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _Gadianton »

The reason why I might have not seen the "conservative" side of "chapel Mormonism" in the beginning was possibly due to my interactions with Clark Goble and Kevin Barney. I can't speak for KB as much but the more I got to know Clark, the more like a liberal Mormon he seemed to be and didn't seem terribly intersted in apologetics. He might be the most problematic case I can think of given I think he's sort of TBM, but at the same time, he seems pretty liberal on many issues.

Nighthawke and Juliann are in fact Internet Mormons. Sure, they are liberal on women's issues and more liberal on Gay rights etc. but they have enough stock in the rest of it to be rightfully Internet Mormons.

It isn't always easy to make the call, but I think I can make it at least to my own satisfaction to the same extent or more I can talk about "bad" people and "good" people.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _EAllusion »

Clark Goble is actually socially conservative in most respects. He has some libertarianish tendencies on the political aspects of social issues, but personally he runs conservative.

He doesn't at all seem in apologetics proper in the way, say, a Bill Hamblin does.

Kevin Barney is the other person I planned on mentioning. Yeah, he's liberal. I think he has more interest in apologetics than Clark normally does, but there's a certain humility and admittance of irrationality (he'd call it extrarrationality) that doesn't make it seem as aggressive.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _Dr. Shades »

EAllusion wrote:I pulled my "Internet Mormon on one issue" idea directly from you Shades. Let me quote it: [SNIP!]

What are you talking about? Your post is in no way related to the words to which it's supposedly responding.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Nghthawke an Internet Mormon despite her tending to have some pretty liberal social views that parallel with her support of mainstream Canadian politics?

Since when does Internet/Chapel Mormonism relate in any way to politics? It might help if you actually read the essay on this topic.

Don't almost all LDS approach issues that might be troubling for them by finding some balance between the traditional stance and what secular knowledge is saying based upon what they think ultimately works? I think that refers to most people you'd call Chapel Mormons just the same.

Yes, but they don't go around trumpeting their balance as the "true" Mormonism and claiming that no Mormon ever believed any different.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _EAllusion »

What are you talking about? Your post is in no way related to the words to which it's supposedly responding.
I was preemptively pointed out that you defined Internet Mormon as someone who holds a belief you've defined as Internet Mormonism, because Gad here is rejecting that. That said, in the test you just gave someone you still have some social conservative issues defined as Chapel Mormon.

Since when does Internet/Chapel Mormonism relate in any way to politics? It might help if you actually read the essay on this topic.



Social issues and political issues entwine. Nghthawke in particular is strongly in favor of gay marriage. This is the antithesis of the LDS Church's view and one of the defining features of its modern social conservatism. According to Gad's definition, this support might be problematic for calling her an Internet Mormon. But you still don't seem to be aware that you and Gad really aren't on the same page here.

Yes, but they don't go around trumpeting their balance as the "true" Mormonism and claiming that no Mormon ever believed any different.
Sure, some do. In fact, I frequently see LDS much more so than more liberal religions expressing a narrow, conservative orthodoxy as the true Mormonism with no real Mormon believing anything different. It strikes me as naïve, but whatevs.

It's not clear that people who harbor beliefs you describe as "Internet Mormon" actually hold this view though, and if they do, it's only going to be in a proportion of their views. Hundred bucks says DCP acknowledges that hemispheric readings of the Book of Mormon were/are believed by some Mormons. Nothing in your attempts to measure it even comes close to getting at it. This, again, represents another shift in official criteria of what defines the distinction.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Poll vs. Shades vs. Nibley

Post by _Dr. Shades »

EAllusion wrote:That said, in the test you just gave someone you still have some social conservative issues defined as Chapel Mormon.

That's only because the Lord's mouthpieces came down definitively on the issue.

Social issues and political issues entwine.

We're not talking about social issues.
We're not talking about political issues.
We're only talking about religious issues.

Nghthawke in particular is strongly in favor of gay marriage.

But she knows she's out of harmony with the Brethren.

This is the antithesis of the LDS Church's view and one of the defining features of its modern social conservatism. According to Gad's definition, this support might be problematic for calling her an Internet Mormon. But you still don't seem to be aware that you and Gad really aren't on the same page here.

It's only "Internet Mormon" to the extent that she says that support of gay marriage is the "true" Mormonism, that opposition to gay marriage was only his opinion, and that no Mormon familiar with the issues was ever anything but in FAVOR of gay marriage.

Sure, some do. In fact, I frequently see LDS much more so than more liberal religions expressing a narrow, conservative orthodoxy as the true Mormonism with no real Mormon believing anything different. It strikes me as naïve, but whatevs.

So you and I agree.

It's not clear that people who harbor beliefs you describe as "Internet Mormon" actually hold this view though, and if they do, it's only going to be in a proportion of their views. Hundred bucks says DCP acknowledges that hemispheric readings of the Book of Mormon were/are believed by some Mormons. Nothing in your attempts to measure it even comes close to getting at it.

??? I not only "get at it," I clearly and unambiguously explain it right there in the essay!

This, again, represents another shift in official criteria of what defines the distinction.

There is no shift. There is simply correcting misinterpretations.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply