Internet vs Chapel Mormons and Mormon Apologetics

[_Daniel Peterson]

Honestly, I'm a little mystified at the insistence that this divide doesn't exist. It should be most obvious to those of us that spend time in the online forums hobnobbing with apologists, and 3 hours on Sunday sitting in the pews and Gospel Doctrine classes. It's like I get to journey back and forth between parallel universes, where people use the same words, but they mean totally different things.

Every week, I'm continually entertained by the total lack of awareness of any sort of apologetic or scholarly line of thought in the discussions at Church. It's not that they object to apologetic arguments, it's more like they don't even know or care that they exist. Studying the Book of Mormon this year has been fun, but I'm really looking forward to next year: Doctrine and Covenants and Church History. Should be fun!

I would imagine, given your cynicism, that it'll be loads of fun. The spectacle of the Other's inferiority never fails to amuse and gratify.

I've bolded some of the items, above, that, in my judgment, make the stark "Internet/Chapel Mormon" dichotomy risible and useless. To deny that there is a spectrum of knowledge and opinion and commitment among believers -- or, more accurately, that there are multiple spectra -- would obviously be wrongheaded. But the pretense that there are "two completely distinct churches," "two rival faiths," and such nonsense can't be taken seriously.

[_antishock8]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Personal attack deleted.] BYU can't do better than this? Feeeeegh.

[_GoodK]

not very clever personal attack that is going to be deleted

Was that really necessary?

I'm with cinepro - I really don't see how anyone familiar with the Mormon church and the Internet can deny this dichotomy. Like Dr. Shades observed, if it exists in the Christian community why couldn't it exist in Mormondom?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm with cinepro - I really don't see how anyone familiar with the Mormon church and the Internet can deny this dichotomy. Like Dr. Shades observed, if it exists in the Christian community why couldn't it exist in Mormondom?

Sanity. That's the problem.

If I were insane, I would probably be more able to see that there are two entirely distinct religions within the Church, with nothing whatever in common except shared vocabulary.

(I really can't believe that you folks can't see how absurdly overdone this is.)





,

[_Trevor]

If I were insane, I would probably be more able to see that there are two entirely distinct religions within the Church, with nothing whatever in common except shared vocabulary.

It's OK that you don't remember when the transporter failed on the Enterprise, just when the entire LDS Church was going through, splitting it into two apparently identical, but morally opposite, halves.

The worst thing is that the Church made unwanted advances at a buxom, blond Yeoman.

[_cinepro]

]
I would imagine, given your cynicism, that it'll be loads of fun.

But don't you notice it too? You are obviously in the bird seat for apologetic arguments, so you should be more finely attuned to the total lack of awareness (or "careness") on some members' parts than I am.

The spectacle of the Other's inferiority never fails to amuse and gratify.

I'm not sure where "inferiority" comes into play. We are discussing the difference between two different groups of LDS who both consider themselves to be faithful believers in the core-claims of the Church. Obviously, the severity of my doubts places me outside of either of those groups, so whether or not I would feel "superior" is irrelevant to the distinction, since one group would be just as easy to feel superior to than two, if I were so inclined.

I've bolded some of the items, above, that, in my judgment, make the stark "Internet/Chapel Mormon" dichotomy risible and useless. To deny that there is a spectrum of knowledge and opinion and commitment among believers -- or, more accurately, that there are multiple spectra -- would obviously be wrongheaded. But the pretense that there are "two completely distinct churches," "two rival faiths," and such nonsense can't be taken seriously.

I acknowledge that there is a continuum and range of belief in both groups, but I don't believe there could actually be anyone placed exactly in the middle. There is a point where the "paradigm" assigns you to one camp or the other.

As I've said before, I think the belief in a worldwide flood of Noah is one of the first things to go, so I think that's a good indicator of where someone's feelings towards the fallibility and correctness of the Church's teachings lie.

[_GoodK]

If I were insane, I would probably be more able to see that there are two entirely distinct religions within the Church, with nothing whatever in common except shared vocabulary.

(I really can't believe that you folks can't see how absurdly overdone this is.)

They have a little more in common than that. I don't think it is overblown at all, I see it. My dad could easily be placed in the "Internet Mormon" category. Every other Mormon that I know is a Chapel Mormon.

I've dealt with this recently. I've talked to my dad about Helen Mar Kimball many times. He has no problem with that little barb in Mormon history, and would direct me to Compton's book or some other apologia. In contrast my friend first denied it ever happened when I asked him what he thought of that. After figuring out for himself that it wasn't a lie, he gave some impotent justification about times being different back then. He clearly didn't swallow it very easily.
Another friend, a BYU pre-law student in his third year, reacted rather adversely to seeing an image of Joseph Smith placing his face into a top hat during the translation process. He insisted it was an anti-Mormon lie. These are return missionaries. How many missionaries talk about - or even know about - the LGT? My dad certainly believes it, as most of his buddies do. The bishop in our ward most certainly has never heard of it. Or Helen Mar Kimball. You may think it is overblown, but it certainly exists. I think a lot has to do with caring about the small tidbits Internet Mormons use to justify their Tolstoy syndrome. Chapel Mormons don't seem to need to justify this and behave in a way that reminded me of this quote:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

Look at this Dennett quote now:

"When [Mormon Apologists] try to talk to the [Brethren] they won't have any of it. You've got to realize, [Mormon Apologetics] is like stamp collecting. It's a very specialized thing and only a few people do it. They take in their own laundry and they get all excited over some very arcane details. And [the Mormon Church] pay almost no attention to what they're saying... because what they say in their writings, at least from my experience, is eye-glazing, mind twisting, very subtle things that which have no particular bearing on life."