Nuku'alofa, Tonga Temple
A place where the Saints are united with each other and with God.
Internet vs. Chapel Mormons
This specific terminology was introduced by a critic of Mormonism, Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades."1
Examples of distinction:
1. Chapel Mormons will typically try and bend the facts to fit the prophets, while Internet Mormons are far more comfortable bending the prophets to fit the facts.
2. When the apologists contradict the prophets, Internet Mormons almost always go with the apologists, while Chapel Mormons almost always go with the prophets.
3. Internet Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Chapel Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" are interchangeable.
4. Internet Mormons believe that Noah's flood was a localized event, covering only a certain area. Chapel Mormons usually believe that Noah's flood was a global event, covering the entire world.
5. Internet Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World filled with Asiatic inhabitants. Chapel Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World devoid of inhabitants save, perhaps, for at least one remaining Jaredite.
6. When discussing prophetic utterances, Internet Mormons often say "it was only his opinion." Chapel Mormons almost never say "it was only his opinion," believing that a prophet's words and God's words are essentially one and the same. 2
I'm sure you get the idea. This topic has been done to death on message boards and on blogs. But for me, this line of thinking has lead me contemplate something completely tangential. Or perhaps what I've been pondering is the central issue and all else is tangential.
Generally "Chapel Mormons" are not even aware that these labels exist. Internet Mormons resist these labels primarily because Dr. Shades (an Anti-Mormon) coined the phrases. I think absent the labels, most Mormons will admit to very "blurry" lines of distinction within our personal beliefs.
I wrote in the MADB thread:
I don't have a problem with...blurry lines of distinction. The days of orthodox literalism is shifting, IMO. I absolutely think that as scientific or historical information becomes available that may challenge our current theological paradigms, Internet Mormons are more likely to entertain the implications; whereas ...Chapel Mormon[s] may bristle to know the Earths age is approx 4.5 billion years old and is not pieces of other old Earths put together.
One does not need to be one or the other. But I don't have a problem with a loose distinction for conversations sake.
My method concerning the acquisition of truth is that...when there seems to be a question regarding something that has previously been confirmed by the Holy Spirit, then there is no question whatever about it. However, if I'm seeking truth that has not been confirmed or revealed by God, then it will come by study and by faith. And I will stay that course until the Spirit bestows further light and knowledge, and my testimony is increased.
I'm rambling now, but here is the thrust of my musings. Despite all of our minor differences we are all Saints. And despite a healthy discussion of the age of the Earth; or biological evolution; or DNA and the Book of Mormon, we remain united in a covenant relationship with God and with each other.
"He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another" (3 Nephi 11:29)
And to our dispensation God declared:
"I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." (D&C 38:27)I could write twenty pages on this single concept. The Temple is where I have learned more about this idea than any other place. But let's look at the Book of Mormon for a moment:
[1]...and behold they [a multitude of Saints] had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.
[2] And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
[3] And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.
[4] And king Benjamin again opened his mouth and began to speak unto them, saying: My friends and my brethren, my kindred and my people...(Mosiah 4: 1-4)
This was both an individual and collective experience. United in heart and purpose, vocally they cried out and made a covenant with God. They were truly kindred people. They had taken the name of Christ upon themselves and were washed clean, they had joy and peace of conscience.
Now, does this mean they were a Borg like collective conscience void of any differences or distinctions? I would say no. I don't know why we have this incredible zeal to label each other with a one dimensional category?
Think for an instance why we have so many varied talents and blessings.
11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. (D&C 46)
What a wonderful thing it is that there is so much variety within the Church. And how wonderful it is that we are able to take those talents that we are blessed with and dedicate them, along with those of our brothers and sisters in the Gospel, to the building up of the Kingdom of God.
So may I simply say thanks to Dr. Shades! Thank you for identifying two of the most beautiful shades amongst the spectrum of colors that is Mormonism.
Am I an Internet Mormon?
Am I a Chapel Mormon?
Am I much more than the aggregate of the two?
Yes!
Big UP!
The Lamanite
1. F.A.I.R. Wiki article.
2. Anti-Mormon site
17 comments:
"So may I simply say thanks to Dr. Shades! Thank you for identifying two of the most beautiful shades amongst the spectrum of colors that is Mormonism."
You're welcome, Lamanite! It's always nice to see yet another believing member who "gets it."
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I'll assume not since there was no [/sarcasm] at the end of your post. I wonder though what it is I "get".
I've wanted to ask you a couple questions but MDB has been down.
First, do you have a transcript of your Sunstone presentation I could have?
Second, I have heard the assertion that the presentation asserts that Mormonism is comprised of two rigidly distinct groups, i.e. Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. It seems silly to think a bright guy like you would be this naive; so what is the thrust of the argument regarding Internet v Chapel Mormons?
Third, what were your motivations behind the survey? To hear some Mormons tell it, it was simply another attempt by you to undermine Mormonism. I generally don't subscribe to this type of black or white thinking. This simplistic view is usually a cognitive distortion. So what motivated the survey?
Last, do you need a hug, because sometimes you seem a little irritable. Just kidding, but not really :-)
Big UP!
Lamanite
Hi Sione,
You wrote:
"I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I'll assume not since there was no [/sarcasm] at the end of your post. I wonder though what it is I 'get.'"
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. You simply "get" the fact that, although the categories are not absolute, they are indeed legitimate.
"First, do you have a transcript of your Sunstone presentation I could have?"
Of course. The audio is at:
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL04233.mp3
It took a LONG time to get going, so skip ahead to 14:05. That's when my presentation starts.
"Second, I have heard the assertion that the presentation asserts that Mormonism is comprised of two rigidly distinct groups, i.e. Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. It seems silly to think a bright guy like you would be this naive; so what is the thrust of the argument regarding Internet v Chapel Mormons?"
No, the groups are not rigidly distinct by any means. It's merely a spectrum, with the more vocal people gravitating toward one "pole" or the other. The silent majority usually falls somewhere in between.
"Third, what were your motivations behind the survey?"
Simple. My Internet Mormon friends repeatedly denied the existence of Chapel Mormons--for example, they'd say things like "No informed Mormon ever believed that Polynesians were decended from Lamanites; No informed Mormon ever believed that Noah's flood covered the entire earth, etc.--so I had to go out there and ask some real Mormons "in the street" how they felt about certain issues, since they refused to believe that I myself had been taught those things in church.
"To hear some Mormons tell it, it was simply another attempt by you to undermine Mormonism."
Of course. They'll say whatever it is they have to say in order to discredit me, since "it cutteth them to the very center."
"I generally don't subscribe to this type of black or white thinking."
Neither do I.
"This simplistic view is usually a cognitive distortion."
I agree.
"So what motivated the survey?"
Like I said, my Mormon friends on the Internet simply refused to believe that any Mormons ever believed that the earth was only 6,000 years old, etc.
"Last, do you need a hug, because sometimes you seem a little irritable. Just kidding, but not really :-)"
Oh, I always need a hug, but only females need apply. :-)
Great post Lamanite. Spoken like a true Internet Mormon!
Still waiting for my membership card. If there's dues to be paid, I'm going to become Sikh!
Big UP!
Lamanite
I have no problems with Dr. Shades' distinctions per se, but I think his titles (internet vs. chapel) are misleading or irrelevant. I can find cites in Hugh Nibley's writings (many of which were published in the Improvement Era in the 1950s and 60s, no less!) for most of the "internet Mormon" characteristics, and yet Nibley was as low-tech as one could get (I had a class from him in the 70s and saw first hand his boxes and boxes of 3x5 cards).
In fact, you could more accurately term these two divisions "Nibley/Eyring Mormons" and "McConkie Mormons" or, pushing things back to the early 20th century, "Widstoe/Talmage/Merrill/Roberts Mormons" and "Joseph Fielding Smith Mormons" (see the latter portion of that post). Nothing new or distinctive about this 'division' -- it's been around for nearly a century. And it's certainly not a "chapel vs. internet" division. YMMV. ..bruce..
Bwebster,
I agree with almost everything you wrote. We could call it the "West Side Tigers" vs. "East Side Eagles", and disavow any part that Dr. Shades played in identifying some of the distinctions that exist within Mormonism.
I agree that Nibley was progressive and Joseph Fielding was, what? Regressive? I'm J/K but for the sake of conversation and communication we need labels. Most labels are not exact and leave room for clarification.
The real problem here is Dr. Shades. If he would have shut up until a Mormon coined the terms we'd be ok. Then we could all say, oh well, Jack Welch coined the terms so they must be ok.
I really don't care if Dr. Shades was forged in the bowels of hell and his Sunstone presentation was diabolical; the stupid phrases are useful. Then again, I'm writing late at night and am probably overstating my position... slightly.
Big Up!
Lamanite
Again, I have no problem at all with Dr. Shades identifying the differences; they're very real, they've been around for a long time, and they crop up regularly. I had it happen just a week or two ago; while teaching a Gospel Essentials class on the purpose of life -- with two newly-baptized couples in there -- one of our ward members threw in a brief rant against evolution that was totally irrelevant to the lesson (and which I personally disagreed with). Aargh!
I dislike the "chapel/interent" distinction for the same reasons I have always disliked Richard Poll's "iron rod/liahona" distinction: not only because I consider it a false dichotomy, but because it has a not-so-subtle whiff of condescension and superiority. Virtually all the Mormons I have known who have subscribed to the "iron rod/liahona" classification considers themselves a "liahona" -- and if you listen to them long enough, it becomes clear that they consider themselves more enlightened than those "iron rod Mormons" bitterly clinging to their copies of Mormon Doctrine. :-)
In all, I'd prefer not to see another inaccurate set of labels get introduced into general LDS discourse. ..bruce..
Hi bwebster,
You wrote:
"I have no problems with Dr. Shades' distinctions per se, but I think his titles (internet vs. chapel) are misleading or irrelevant. I can find cites in Hugh Nibley's writings (many of which were published in the Improvement Era in the 1950s and 60s, no less!) for most of the 'internet Mormon' characteristics[.]"
I understand where you're coming from, but the reason I had to stick with those terms is because those are the two places you'll most easily hear those two types of Mormonisms being propagated.
You'll hear Internet Mormonism being "preached" most often on the Internet, whereas you'll hear Chapel Mormonism preached most often in church.
Hence the two titles become almost self-descriptive, making them a better, more easily-identifiable "fit" than any other terms we could've come up with.
Hmmmmm...interesting.....but I say labeling really has no use in the gospel. we are all at different parts of the journey back to Christ and may find that we are a liahona mormon (which is a better then internet /chapel Mormon description) at one point, trusting that the Lord will correct us when and if necessary as we make the choices we need to make and at other times we are simply the iron rod Mormon...holding on with all our might, because that is the only thing that we have at the moment and know that it will not fail us.
See I still read your posts....and even enjoy them....but seriously,I have found more and more that I don't need to read outside sources or opinions. The scriptures (including the prophets words) have become enough for me....I still struggle to understand...but I keep reading. and besides with five kids and two more on the way....my reading is limited to the laundry and cereal box!
But I enjoy your posts...they give me an eyebrow lift and a laugh and always leave me thinking!
It's always a pleasure when you stop by Sister McDonald!
Just out of curiosity; do you reject the label "active" or "less active". It seems as though the Church finds them necessary.
How about the label "converted". Doesn't that imply that conversion is an event rather than a process? That would be extremely divisive. Or, would we understand that gradations exist within the taxonomy of simply being "converted", and that labels provide a very loose distinction simply to provide context to something that would otherwise be totally abstract and subjective.
Labels need not always negate unity. In my most humble of opinions.
And for what it's worth, sticking with the Brethren and the scriptures is far better than reading blogs or watching Lipstick Jungle.
Big UP!
Lamanite
I found a Wonderful site on Isaiah!
http://www.isaiahexplained.com/
The site has free lessons on every chapter.
Very well done and in the author’s own voice.
Every Isaiah Chapter has the Analytical Commentary of Isaiah. Enjoy this personable verse-by-verse commentary of Isaiah by well-known Hebrew scholar Avraham Gileadi.
“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)
“It is my testimony that this man has been brought forward and trained at this time to help those inside the Church into Isaiah, and those outside the Church, Jew and Gentile, through Isaiah into the Church” —Arthur Henry King, author, former BYU professor and London
Temple President.
“Dr. Gileadi has achieved a major breakthrough in the investigation of a book of such complexity and importance as the Book of Isaiah”—Professor David Noel Freedman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
“Dr. Gileadi’s work will render obsolete almost all the speculations of Isaiah scholars over the last one hundred years . . . enabling scholarship to proceed along an entirely new line . . . opening new avenues of approach for others to follow”—Professor Roland K. Harrison, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada.
“Only one who is truly at home not only with the Hebrew but with the ancient manner of biblical thought could have produced such an insightful and ground-breaking book”—Professor S. Douglas Waterhouse, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.
“Avraham Gileadi’s unsealing of the Book of Isaiah will forever change people’s
understanding of Judeo-Christian religion, lifting it to heights hitherto known only to prophets and saints”—Arie Noot, corporate executive, Edmond, Oklahoma.
“Isaiah Decoded is a huge breakthrough for the seeker of truth—Jew, Christian, Moslem, and agnostic. From an ancient writing, Gileadi has brought to light eternal truths about the nature of God and our relationship to him that have lain buried for centuries in the dust of time”—Guy Wins, fifth-generation Jewish diamond dealer from Antwerp, Belgium.
“Gileadi is the only scholar I know who has been able to express the Jewish expectation of the Messiah in relation to the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth”—Daniel Rona, Israeli tour guide, Jerusalem, Israel.
“Dr. Gileadi has clearly demonstrated his mastery of the Book of Isaiah and of the scholarly literature dealing with it”—Professor Ronald Youngblood, Bethel Theological Seminary, San Diego, California.
“Avraham Gileadi’s books and tapes take the casual observer of Isaiah’s words and transform him into an enlightened and lifelong student of the Word of God”—Allan and Nancy Pratt, LDS mission president, Toulouse, France.
“Dr. Gileadi has awakened a whole new depth of my understanding of Isaiah’s prophetic message. His books and tapes illuminate the urgent relevance of Isaiah’s writings to our own day”—Becky Douglas, supervisor and sponsor of three orphanages in India, Atlanta, Georgia.
“Dr. Gileadi’s translation [of the Book of Isaiah] is clear and smooth, allowing the reader to appreciate the power and beauty of Isaiah as conveyed in the Hebrew original”—Professor Herbert M. Wolf, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.
“Gileadi has uncovered an amazing message written in a divine code by the prophet–poet Isaiah. This will give comfort, hope, and joy to masses of people as they cope with the perplexing events now unfolding before their eyes”—Fenton Tobler, thirty years elementary school principle, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hey DeweyOlsen:
If Gileadi is all that great, why was he excommunicated?
Again...hmm.....I am going to reject labels...because there are times when I am less then active..at least in my heart...when I am unable to shake the feeling of not wanting to go to church.,...because I don't find a lot of the people there all that pleasant...and it feels easier to avoid them. But I know in my heart that I am "active" and have an "active" testimony...and there are times when I am truly converted and times when I questions and wonder if it is all a hoax.....(which is not very often...but I do wonder how you really find out if indeed we were lead astray!) So the labels are for someone to label else and not necessarily for the person that is being labeled! I have known, and I am sure that you have known, lots of people that are truly converted, but are labeled "less active" because of some reason or other..... O try and avoid labels of each and every kind...just because I hate being labeled and because, truly, Christ did not have labels...when we believe in Him, we are merely His children, nothing more and nothing less.
Besides...I believe that it is labels that have caused most of the troubles, wars and loss of faith in Christ because of labels.
Anyway..I could go on, not with such clarity as you, but I am bushed from entertaining little kids! Talk to you soon and give a big hug to your family! from us!!
Renee,
We'll talk more about the usage of labels within and without the Church as a mechanism for communication, when I see you next.
PS No label covers all the bases and no label covers every color in the spectrum. i.e. Nephite/Lamanite post Christ ministry among the Lehites.
Big UP!
Lamanite
Post a Comment