The greater fraud?

[_bcspace]

"No such dichotomy," eh? Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet earth?

Y/N

The dichotomy presupposes, erroneously, that internet access and use shapes the beliefs of a significant number of LDS people.

[_msnobody]

I didn't vote because I couldn't decide between the two options. I don't think a chapel Mormon becomes an internet Mormon until something just doesn't seem right with chapel Mormonism. I suppose there is a difference in being defrauded, defrauding oneself, and defrauding others. At times, it has seemed to me that a person's testimony of the LDS church may at times hinge on the testimony of other LDS.

Sometimes I am struck by how persons love the Mormon culture and how some persons after realizing there are problems, try to make Mormonism into what they want it to be.

I suppose for now, I won't vote.

[_Dr. Shades]

"No such dichotomy," eh? Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet earth?

Y/N

The dichotomy presupposes, erroneously, that internet access and use shapes the beliefs of a significant number of LDS people.

You're wrong. The Internet is merely the location in which it's easiest to encounter this brand of Mormon thought--and the venue in which it's most vehemently preached. Mere Internet access has nothing whatsoever to do with the beliefs of Internet Mormonism, as I've explained over and over ad nauseam.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll demonstrate why Internet Mormonism is a greater fraud than Chapel Mormonism.

Chapel Mormonism:



Then this happens when a Chapel Mormon starts to read:



Then the Internet Mormon emerges:



At this point the road diverges:

1) NOM:



2) Apostate:



3) Internet Mopologist:



As you can see Internet Mormonism is the greater fraud because it forces action rather than inducing passive ignorance. What I mean by that is you're left with:

a) Ignoring the facts, and just going along with it. <- That's supporting and perpetuating the fraud.

b) Not ignoring the facts, and leaving Mormonism. <- That's not supporting the fraud.

c) Ignoring the facts, and perpetuating the fraud. <- That's supporting and perpetuating the fraud.

Chapel Mormonism is fraud through ignorance, but at some point most Chapel Mormons are forced to become Internet Mormons. It's inevitable. Thus they knowingly perpetuate a fraud, and can no longer feign ignorance. They become part of the scheme rather than the innocent victims of it.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Franktalk]

You're wrong. The Internet is merely the location in which it's easiest to encounter this brand of Mormon thought--and the venue in which it's most vehemently preached. Mere Internet access has nothing whatsoever to do with the beliefs of Internet Mormonism, as I've explained over and over ad nauseam.

I have to agree that the vehicle does not make the belief. People who tend to think alike tend to gather into groups. This is human nature. But what is really important is why they have their beliefs in the first place. This thread does not deal with this issue. This thread has boundaries around itself. Once one has gone down this path to discard the baby with the bath water then a discussion of classification of the various types of believers is valid.

[_Some Schmo]

If you look for God then you will find Him (so long as you're willing to make him up when he doesn't actually make an appearance).

There. Fixed it for you.

[_stemelbow]

Hey all, I just wanted to chime in and say I said internet Mormonism. Its definitely the case, in my eyes, that the dichotomy is way over-played, but I think I see what's being said. I selected internet Mormonism because i usually think I'm a part of the bigger fraud always.

Take care, losers (playing around. settle down)

[_asbestosman]

Simple example would be his age. If JSH is "fact" then he was 14, this would make the other versions not factual.

Sure. The other versions contain errors, or the JSH one contains an error at least regarding age. However the precise age at which this happened doesn't matter all that much. Sometimes I'm off on my recollection of events by a few years unless I can correlate it with enough other events to narrow down the potential dates.

but for the record, you lost some points on my esteem meter over this one.

It would be helpful to me if you articulated why. If you see something here I don't, then there's a blind spot because not only do I not see anything wrong with it myself, I cannot figure out why a critic would find much at fault with it.

[Guest]

From what I recall of earlier versions (appearing in the Ensign and which I read at BYU), I take them as fact too. I just happen to believe the JSH version contains the most important details. Also, I believe the JSH version has had a bit more scrutiny for clarity--at least on the most important details.

...but for the record, you lost some points on my esteem meter over this one.

It would be helpful to me if you articulated why. If you see something here I don't, then there's a blind spot because not only do I not see anything wrong with it myself, I cannot figure out why a critic would find much at fault with it.

Probably because uncharacteristically for you, asbestosman, here you seemed to say you (a) accept the 'whole enchilada' without any scrutiny or explanation, and (b) accept the canonized, 1838 version as having the 'most important details', with no explanation of what is included therein and what is left out of it.

I understand that concerning, from Wesley Walters' piece, Joseph Smith's First Vision: Fact or Fiction?, the first vision--

• There is no record of revivals in 1820 in or near Palmyra of "great multitudes" joined the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches--The Presbyterian records for the Palmyra Presbyterian Church show that it experienced no revival in 1820. (See Geneva Presbytery "Records," Presbyterian Historical Society.) The local Baptist church gained only six on profession of faith the entire year ("Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra," American Baptist Historical Society) while the Methodists actually lost members that year as well as the preceding and following years (Minutes of the Annual Conference).
• JSJr claimed that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, that seems to have occurred 3 years later, in 1823 (LDS Messenger & Advocate I, pp. 42, 78), which also explained it was an angel in his bedroom, not elohim or jehovah in a grove. Lucy Mack Smith's unpublished account traces the origin of Mormonism to a bedroom visit by an angel. (First draft of "Lucy Smith's History," LDS Church Archives).
• Lucy also explained the revival and her joining the church following the death of her son, Alvin, who died Nov. 19, 1823 (p. 55-56).
• Newspaper accounts explain a revival occurred in 1824-25, with The Baptist church receiving 94 new converts, the Presbyterian 99, the Methodist 208. "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.
• The difference between an occurrence when you are 14 years of age and 17 (or older) is significant. Think of what was happening in your hometown when you were 14 versus 19. Do you really conflate the two in your own recollections of your past?
• In the 1832 version, JSJr came to the key conclusion about the existing denominations from reading the scriptures rather than at the time of being told by elohim or jehovah "it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong": "By searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament." See the text in BYU Studies, Spring 1969, pp. 278ff.
• In the 1832 version, JSJr mentions only jehovah, but by 1838 elohim was added to the tale.
• Not such a trivial point since David O. McKay declared that "the appearing of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith is the foundation of the Church." (Gospel Ideals, p. 85).
• In the 1838 version, after there had been some actual persecution of JSJr, he added that following the first vision, he was persecuted by the Palmyra area churches for telling of the first vision. However, Orsemus Turner, in the same juvenile debating club with JSJr, recalled that "after catching a spark of Methodism [JSJr] became a very passable exhorter in evening meetings" (History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, 1851, p. 214).
• Even Brigham Young undertsood it was an angel sent to JSJr to tell him all other religions were wrong, not elohim, not jehovah "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven...But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun...and informed him that he should not join any of the religions of the day, for they were all wrong;..." (Journal of Discourses 2:171).
• The 1832 version failed to mention an evil power having overcome JSJr before the divine appearance, but by 1835 tellings and in the 1838 one, it was part of the story.

So is it, like McKay said, the foundation of the LDS Church that elohim and jehovah appeared, or that one of them simply sent an emissary angel? Do you not find it at all disturbing that the concept of the 1830 god in the Book of Mormon more reflects a singular god or trinity concept, and JSJr claimed in 1832 that only one of them appeared to him, but by 1838 when JSJr had better developed his concept of three distinct beings united in purpose for a godhead, then lo and behold he remembers it was two distinct personages that appeared to him in the grove?

Is it also insignificant whether JSJr, who founded a new church, determined on his own from scripture study that all of the existing ones were false, as opposed to elohim or jehovah telling him that?

I suppose that I found your glossing over these problems, to pronounce the facts of all the accounts to be true when some directly conflict, and that without explanation the salient points are found in the 1838 version, the one JSJr developed years after the first tellings of the tale and stuck with would be the one.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I'll demonstrate why Internet Mormonism is a greater fraud than Chapel Mormonism.

Chapel Mormonism:



Then this happens when a Chapel Mormon starts to read:



Then the Internet Mormon emerges:



At this point the road diverges:

1) NOM:



2) Apostate:



3) Internet Mopologist:



As you can see Internet Mormonism is the greater fraud because it forces action rather than inducing passive ignorance. What I mean by that is you're left with:

a) Ignoring the facts, and just going along with it. <- That's supporting and perpetuating the fraud.

b) Not ignoring the facts, and leaving Mormonism. <- That's not supporting the fraud.

c) Ignoring the facts, and perpetuating the fraud. <- That's supporting and perpetuating the fraud.

Chapel Mormonism is fraud through ignorance, but at some point most Chapel Mormons are forced to become Internet Mormons. It's inevitable. Thus they knowingly perpetuate a fraud, and can no longer feign ignorance. They become part of the scheme rather than the innocent victims of it.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Dr. Cam,

I wish I had some award that I could give you for this post. My chest is literally aching right now from not being able to breathe.