bcspace wrote:The solution to the whole conundrum is the fact that there is no such dichotomy as Chapel vs. Internet Mormons. What has been used as "chapel" Mormons are the much smaller group (and the real dichotomy) of Fielding-McConkites; those who were raised on the acceptance of the non doctrinal works and statements of BRM and JSF (and Skousen and a few others) despite the Church's repudiation or nonacceptance of such.
You bring up a good point, BC. One thing that I have noticed is that Chapel Mormons are, typically, of the generation that is slightly older than mine. Those of us who are in our late 40's are, more or less, on the cusp of this BRM phenomenon. We grew up hearing our parents and/or grandparents touting much of this as doctrine.
liz3564 wrote:You bring up a good point, BC. One thing that I have noticed is that Chapel Mormons are, typically, of the generation that is slightly older than mine. Those of us who are in our late 40's are, more or less, on the cusp of this BRM phenomenon. We grew up hearing our parents and/or grandparents touting much of this as doctrine.
Good point Liz. Every time I hear BC claim what is and is not doctrine, I think of this older group of people for whom it was and still is doctrine. As far as it being a small group, I also disagree with that assessment, but like BC, I have no numbers to prove one way or the other. In my experience most of the members I associate with consider the flood global, Adam lived 7000 years ago ish in a specific isolated spot known as the garden of Eden and so on. Perhaps the only thing we do agree on is that there is a division between those who hold to antiquated beliefs in the Church and those more in tune with LDS newsroom bulletins.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Scratch wrote:The Mopologists at the Maxwell Institute have come out rather boldly to denounce the very Chapel Mormon-ish Rodney Meldrum as a "charlatan" and a fraud. We might be able to attribute this to the fact that Meldrum has been more aggressive and assertive in expressing his views, but what do the Mopologists think about the LDS who genuinely believe that Meldrum's views are Church orthodoxy?
I think that the problem Church leaders and apologists had with Meldrum was that he was using a personal revelation for his own monetary gain.
He claimed that he had received personal revelation that the spot in NY was the spot where the final Book of Mormon battle took place, and was busy selling tickets for his tour.
Which "Church leaders" have spoken out against Meldrum? And I don't really see how you can denounce Meldrum for leading tours to Book of Mormon lands. See here:
The Mopologists have been doing this sort of thing for a much, much longer time than Meldrum has.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
liz3564 wrote:You bring up a good point, BC. One thing that I have noticed is that Chapel Mormons are, typically, of the generation that is slightly older than mine. Those of us who are in our late 40's are, more or less, on the cusp of this BRM phenomenon. We grew up hearing our parents and/or grandparents touting much of this as doctrine.
Yep, spot on. We were raised in many ways in uncorrelated Mormonism because our parents believed traditional teachings before they were wiped out by correlation. A friend of mine posted this on Facebook the other day, and it applies, I think. Jan Shipps spoke to an LDS audience in an LDS chapel recently. Here's part of my friend's report:
Essentially Jan's thesis was that Mormons became an ethnic group (she called them DNA Mormons as opposed to church attending Mormons) in 1877 which ended about 1950 (due to the tremendous worldwide growth and subsequent correlation). She spoke about the first vision not being emphasized until 1877, and suggested it became the focus of the new Mormon identity as plural marriage was on its way out.
She spoke about the changes that correlation made to the church -- how it became a bureaucracy rather than auxiliaries run by the people -- and how the first rule of a bureaucracy is CYA, cover your "whatever." She got a great response with that. She also said that the post-correlation lesson manuals intentionally "dumbed down" Mormonism in order to appeal to the influx of new members, and that as a result a lot of the intellectual elements of Mormonism were lost.
She talked about how she was recently given access president Packer for over an hour, and Uchtdorf for nearly two hours, and Eyring as well -- tape-recorded interviews that she will be using for an upcoming book. And she asked Packer what he thought the biggest problem with the church was today. He turned the question back on her, and she decided no to go with the "gay thing" because she knew the interview would end right there. She also decided against saying that the internet was providing more information and painting the church's official histories as less than honest.. She said instead that it was single women struggling to find an identity in a church tailored to mothers and families. He paused, and told her "The gospel is true, but it isn't always fair." And then he went on to assure her that those single women would find good husbands in the hereafter. She has that on tape and is going to use it in her book.
The solution to the whole conundrum is the fact that there is no such dichotomy as Chapel vs. Internet Mormons. What has been used as "chapel" Mormons are the much smaller group (and the real dichotomy) of Fielding-McConkites; those who were raised on the acceptance of the non doctrinal works and statements of BRM and JSF (and Skousen and a few others) despite the Church's repudiation or nonacceptance of such.
You bring up a good point, BC. One thing that I have noticed is that Chapel Mormons are, typically, of the generation that is slightly older than mine. Those of us who are in our late 40's are, more or less, on the cusp of this BRM phenomenon. We grew up hearing our parents and/or grandparents touting much of this as doctrine.
But the interesting thing is that most Mormons of that generation, while they may have the works, seemed to understand their relationship to actual doctrine. My own parents being such an example. I find a lot older people referring to statements from those works simply from memory but when they are reminded where they came from, they remember that such is not necessarily doctrine.
So those who actually accept such works as doctrine seem to be in a group as small as the NOMS; very small indeed. Those are your "chapel Mormons" and hence, there is no such dichotomy as chapel vs. internet Mormons. Most Mormons (active) are actually quite internet savy and have served missions or are married to someone who has. And so most Mormons of the type whose faith you are interested in overturning are your "internet Mormons". There are so so few who actually are suprised to hear what you think they haven't heard already.
We were raised in many ways in uncorrelated Mormonism because our parents believed traditional teachings before they were wiped out by correlation.
Definitely a rewrite of history (along with your friend's report of Shipps). So few doctrines have been changed or "eliminated" and none of them critical. As noted before, PM and PB remain doctrines.
bcspace wrote:Definitely a rewrite of history (along with your friend's report of Shipps). So few doctrines have been changed or "eliminated" and none of them critical. As noted before, PM and PB remain doctrines.
Nah, just my experience. No rewriting necessary.
Quick question: do you think that the official church publications before 1971 are doctrine? Just curious.
Definitely a rewrite of history (along with your friend's report of Shipps). So few doctrines have been changed or "eliminated" and none of them critical. As noted before, PM and PB remain doctrines.
Nah, just my experience. No rewriting necessary.
Notice I qualified with active LDS. You may have many people with intermittent attendance not getting the whole context and their children active or not growing up with that incomplete context. Hence the problem is one of activity, not doctrine.
Quick question: do you think that the official church publications before 1971 are doctrine? Just curious.
Yes, by definition they are unless the Church says something about them. This is where you'll find the most change in doctrine as the Church now pays more attention to it. This is also where Shipps, as per your friend's report, is wrong. It's not about bureaucracy, it's about expunging personal opinion from doctrine or identifying it as such. Of course it's CYA, but not cynical as you purport it to be.