When Chapel Mormons Attack

[_Fence Sitter]

And I will wish right along with you.

It is a strange fact, but true, that Mormonism talks at length about an apostasy from the true understanding of God, some even lacing it with reference to the official adoption of Greek philosophy into the early Christian Church, but nevertheless blithely (and blindly?) adhere to such Greek philosophical concepts as God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Mormonism is, I think, much more interesting and true to itself when it discards these three Greek words and discusses God based on restorationist teachings. (While simultaneously recognizing there are things about God we are not likely going to understand anytime soon.)

God is not "perfect" in some universal way. He is still progressing (as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young though contradicted by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie).

We are similar to God; not perfect but still progressing. (But this very similarity means we can learn a lot about God by looking within.)

We are all on the same endless path.

God is merely further along and beckons to us from just beyond the next bend.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig if you will teach Sunday School I'll attend.

This is the kind of stuff that distinguishes LDS from mainstream Christian religion and should be what we are shouting to the world instead of "I am a Mormon, just like anyone else.". The way we are going we will soon be "The Church of The Community-of-Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[_Blixa]

And I will wish right along with you.

It is a strange fact, but true, that Mormonism talks at length about an apostasy from the true understanding of God, some even lacing it with reference to the official adoption of Greek philosophy into the early Christian Church, but nevertheless blithely (and blindly?) adhere to such Greek philosophical concepts as God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Mormonism is, I think, much more interesting and true to itself when it discards these three Greek words and discusses God based on restorationist teachings. (While simultaneously recognizing there are things about God we are not likely going to understand anytime soon.)

God is not "perfect" in some universal way. He is still progressing (as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young though contradicted by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie).

We are similar to God; not perfect but still progressing. (But this very similarity means we can learn a lot about God by looking within.)

We are all on the same endless path.

God is merely further along and beckons to us from just beyond the next bend.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig if you will teach Sunday School I'll attend.

This is the kind of stuff that distinguishes LDS from mainstream Christian religion and should be what we are shouting to the world instead of "I am a Mormon, just like anyone else.". The way we are going we will soon be "The Church of The Community-of-Christ of Latter-day Saints."

+1

[_Doctor Scratch]

It is richly satisfying to see a Chapel Mormon like Sister Skaggs drawing upon Shades's ingenious terminology. Even if you happen to disagree with the descriptive value of Shades's distinctions, I'm sure you can't help but appreciate the fact that the Mopologists are going ballistic over this. And of course they have been consdescending. Just witness Maklelan's recent spiral into insanity as he struggled to claim that garments are purely symbolic while at the same time trying to avoid admitting that he thinks Mormon garment "literalists" are total rubes and simpletons.

And not surprisingly--as was alluded to earlier--Dan Peterson has crapped out an epic-length meltdown/rebuttal wherein he tries to say that Sister Skaggs *isn't* actually using the terminology in the same way as Dr. Shades et al. Nonetheless, he still accuses her of "hostile slander":

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/568 ... l-mormons/

This may very well be the most hilarious part of his post:

Whether or not the critics who love to wield the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy as a weapon against believers are crowing with delight at Sister Skaggs's article, I don't know. I've tried, with considerable success, to ignore them for quite a while now. But I expect that they will, if they haven't already. This little post is, I suppose, a kind of preemptive shot across their bow. Not that it will do any good.

Sure, Dr. P. Sure. It's heartening to hear that you knowingly frittered away however many minutes hammering out an angry and frustrated post that would not "do any good."

[_Dr. Shades]

It is richly satisfying to see a Chapel Mormon like Sister Skaggs drawing upon Shades's ingenious terminology.

AMEN, BROTHA!!

And not surprisingly--as was alluded to earlier--Dan Peterson has crapped out an epic-length meltdown/rebuttal wherein he tries to say that Sister Skaggs *isn't* actually using the terminology in the same way as Dr. Shades et al.

For context's sake, this is the evidence he provides to back up that assertion:

Men who have served or are serving as officers of the Maxwell Institute have also served and/or currently are serving as members of the Church's curriculum-writing committees and on scripture-translating teams and as bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents and temple presidents. Yet the Brethren don't generally call "rebellious" men who oppose "many Church policies and leaders" to such positions, which seems to suggest that the leadership of the Church doesn't view the leadership of the Maxwell Institute as being "rebellious" and "oppositional."

FAIR enough. Yet I've already said on numerous occasions that even the Internet Mormons know the "correct" answers when a gun is pointed to their heads. The church can ignore what Internet Mormons say about the prophets being wrong about Adam being the first human, the prophets speaking as men when they preach that there was no death before the Fall, that prophets were merely repeating the old wives' tales of their childhood milieu when they taught that the Flood covered the entire earth, etc., as long as they only say so on the Internet. But let them say these same things over the pulpit, and WHAM--no more callings or positions of authority for them.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's a good point, Shades. Another thing I notice is that DCP's argument here is a kind of self-serving assertion. As your theory points out, the Internet Mormons have been very slowly and carefully eroding and undermining the Brethren's authority--Adam God is not actually doctrine; the flood was not really global; Cumorah is not really in NY; blood atonement was not a real doctrine--so of course the Brethren won't dare "oppose" the MI guys. Why would they? If they don't even have the power to define something so fundamental as Church doctrine, they why would they have the ability to discipline the worst offenders from the Maxwell Institute or FAIR? Per DCP's assessment, the Brethren are so devoid of inspiration and sense that they are impotent to do much of anything beyond the dispensing of bland platitudes and stale bromides.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I hope that someone emails Sister Skaggs and asks her if she has any particular Internet Mormons in mind. I bet her reply would be fascinating.

[_Shulem]

But let them say these same things over the pulpit, and WHAM--no more callings or positions of authority for them.

And thus we see there is a difference between a Chapel Mormon and an Internet Mormon. Internet Mormons are in a state of apostasy but the Chapel Mormons are ever patient that they will one day embrace a real testimony based on the faith of things unknown.

Let the Internet Mormons keep silent in the churches. It is not permitted that they speak their doctrine at the pulpit. But you could readily take the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith to the pulpit and get a nice pat on the back by the bishop. But take the apologetic ramblings of the apostate Internet Mormon to the pulpit and look out, you're in trouble. Feathers will ruffle. Trust me, I was once a Chapel Mormon and I would have stood up after the meeting and challenged the Internet Mormon who dared to bring faithless shame to the pulpit because of his lack of trust in the teachings of the prophets. There would have been a fight for sure or, at least a big stink.

An Internet Mormon going up against the former Chapel Mormon Paul O would have got his ass kicked in the chapel in front of everyone.

Paul O

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Internet Mormons tending to be more educated, prideful, rebellious, knowledgeable, oppositional to many Church policies and leaders, etc..

http://www.ldsmag.com/component/zine/article/9283

HAHAHA! BOOKMARKED!

Congrats Doc! You have been quoted in Meridian Mag!

There are many other terms to distinguish between these so-called liberal and literal Mormons, such as "Chapel Mormons" and "Internet Mormons". Internet Mormons tending to be more educated, prideful, rebellious, knowledgeable, oppositional to many Church policies and leaders, etc... Then we have your generic Chapel Mormons, who sit in Church on Sundays with the "all is well in Zion" approach to their membership, who know the Church is true, confident in their Exaltation -- also known as "clueless" to the Internet/liberal Mormon who knows the "real truth". Ugh.

[_RayAgostini]

Congrats Doc! You have been quoted in Meridian Mag!

There are many other terms to distinguish between these so-called liberal and literal Mormons, such as "Chapel Mormons" and "Internet Mormons". Internet Mormons tending to be more educated, prideful, rebellious, knowledgeable, oppositional to many Church policies and leaders, etc... Then we have your generic Chapel Mormons, who sit in Church on Sundays with the "all is well in Zion" approach to their membership, who know the Church is true, confident in their Exaltation -- also known as "clueless" to the Internet/liberal Mormon who knows the "real truth". Ugh.

It seems unlikely to me that she ever read Richard Poll's Liahona and Iron Rod Revisited, first version published in 1967.

[_ldsfaqs]

There are MANY errors in this article....., which makes me wonder if the person writing it is even a TBM as claimed.

1. So-called "Internet Mormons" (more informed) do not call the less educated or so-called "Chapel Mormons" TBM's, as the writer of this article claims. We are TBM's ourselves. We either call ourselves that, or it's anti-mormons and ex-mormons who call us ALL that.

2. Further the writer lies by claiming we "learned" LDS look down on etc. the less learned LDS. That is an anti-mormon belief, it's the belief of the person this who false characterization of Internet & Chapel Mormon came from. Learned LDS are no different at all than the less learned LDS. We believe the SAME EXACT things, but with simply a little more information, and also more informed in how the enemy's of the Church attack the Church. Thus, the writer lies claiming there is a "division" between us.... That is something anti-mormons claim, not the so-called Internet Mormon.

3. The writer also lies in trying to claim that the so-called Internet Mormons are not for "Traditional Marriage". I don't know of ANY Mormon, save Liberals of the Political kind who don't believe in Traditional Marriage. Most of us Internet Mormons are Faithful Members of the Church and true blue Conservatives. The writer is clearly confusing anti-mormons and liberals on the internet with Faithful Mormons be they the so-called Internet or Chapel Mormon variety.

4. It is the anti-mormon/ex-mormon who goes around claiming that so-called intellectual Mormons know the "real truth" while so-called chapel Mormons do not. Again, the writer lies..... I've been doing Online apologetics for years, and what she claims do not come from faithful Mormons.

5. The writer again lies speaking of "name-calling". I don't know of any so-called Internet Mormon who "name-calls" other Mormons, even the less scholarly inclined. But I've seen anti-mormons and ex-mormons do it all the time. Again, the writer seems seriously confused.

6. Well, in conclusion, she speaks of loving others, not to name call other Mormons, etc......

Well, frankly, I don't get this article..... She seems to have read some anti-mormonism and falsely assumed it to be from faithful Mormons, and then goes to try and teach us about loving others in the faith even though they are different. Well, all I can say, is she is seriously misinformed. As a so-called Internet Mormon, even before the Internet existed, and as a Faithful TBM, who doesn't disagree with ANYTHING Mormonism and the Church teaches and stands for, I can only say "Watchya talking about Willus???" The Mormonism I believe and the Mormonism the regular believing Mormon believes is exactly the same. I just know a little more. And I certainly don't go around parrading it, and degrading my fellow Mormons. Now, anti-mormons do, the kinds of persons this who Internet/Chapel Mormon idea came from, ex-mormons who became anti-mormon and think they know better, who DO do all the things she accuses us faithful learned LDS of. Again, that's them, not us.....

I would thus as the writer to retract and correct her article and claims. She entirely LIES about us faithful learned LDS, and it's unacceptable.