Are there two churches forming?

[fusnik11]

I thought this site was interesting, especially the last part of the site comparing internet mormons vs chapel mormons.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

IMO, there is a split in LDS theology and interpretation.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I thought this site was interesting, especially the last part of the site comparing internet mormons vs chapel mormons.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

IMO, there is a split in LDS theology and interpretation.

History has shown that when the Church becomes too diverse geopolitically or philosphically schism is the inexorable result. Success breeds ultimately schism. It all began with the Catholic/Orthodox divorse, then there came the various ORthodoxes, the Protestant Reformation, the advent of Mormonism and so on, and each of these sects will schism in proportion to their growth and ubiquity.

Some fear more schism in Catholicism between more hard assed evangelical movements and the main Church (Protestantism redux, but the splinter group may be the lest hard assed part this time) or by an American segment, etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thanks for the link. Certainly some interesting points there. But I think he is overly contemptuous of apologists. Not surprising given that he currently identifies himself as an ex-mormon. Consider the quote he has at the bottom of his main page, for example. I also think he has exaggerated the conflicts between the two camps. Statements like:

"Unfortunately, and perhaps most importantly, the prophets themselves have never defined their own role the way the apologists have."

almost imply that an "internet mormon" or apologist would be castigated by the upper church leadership. I just don't see that happening. In fact, I see the church starting to defer to apologists. Witness the recent case where after the LA Times article on DNA and the BOM, the lds.org website contained a link to an apologist article.

I think LDS apologists are often portrayed unfairly, especially by exmormons such as this one. Like any other group of humans, some do a poor job and some do a great job.

[danimal]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I thought this site was interesting, especially the last part of the site comparing internet mormons vs chapel mormons.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

IMO, there is a split in LDS theology and interpretation.

There may be a split, but the internet mormons, at least in my experience, are a very small percentage of active mormons.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I thought this site was interesting, especially the last part of the site comparing internet mormons vs chapel mormons.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

IMO, there is a split in LDS theology and interpretation.

Really interesting point. I have to admit I clicked on the link with the spirit of wanting to be irritated by yet another stupid characterization of the church made by an anti-mormon. I actually nearly agreed 100% with what was said.

I evolved into an internet Mormon over time but cemented when I read Stephen Robinson's How Wide the Divide in the late 90's. That was back when the only thing the internet was good for was porn, so the name "internet" Mormon's a little off, but I get the idea.

I can see this crash between chapel and internet Mormons taking place over time. It will get interesting.

The only thing I disagree with is that an internet Mormon will dismiss the prophet's teachings. Although I can explain away anything BY or JS taught that's not in the canon or taught by GBH today, I don't dismiss GBH's teachings and counsel today. If he tells me to get out of debt, or not watch rated R movies, I take it very seriously--at face value.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Really interesting point. I have to admit I clicked on the link with the spirit of wanting to be irritated by yet another stupid characterization of the church made by an anti-mormon. I actually nearly agreed 100% with what was said.

I evolved into an internet Mormon over time but cemented when I read Stephen Robinson's How Wide the Divide in the late 90's. That was back when the only thing the internet was good for was porn, so the name "internet" Mormon's a little off, but I get the idea.

I can see this crash between chapel and internet Mormons taking place over time. It will get interesting.

The only thing I disagree with is that an internet Mormon will dismiss the prophet's teachings. Although I can explain away anything BY or JS taught that's not in the canon or taught by GBH today, I don't dismiss GBH's teachings and counsel today. If he tells me to get out of debt, or not watch rated R movies, I take it very seriously--at face value.

Hegemony has dominated the church for the past eighty years, and I believe with the advent of the internet, this practice will discontinue.

The 'internet members' have too much ammunition and the church refuses to take, or make formal stands on certain issues so I believe too the crash will be interesting.

[All-American]

Upon reading the article, I must say that he seems to be describing two extremes between which I sit. I secretly suspect he has over-polarized the description.

For example:

"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."

This could just be the really, really stupid me coming out, but I don't usually see the need to bend anybody to anything. Most often, if the facts and the prophet don't "fit," it's because there's not enough information. Once one gets out enough facts, the picture fits quite nicely. Maybe I just don't understand the vernacular used.

"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."

Again, I don't agree with either statement, and I don't believe most Mormons would either. "ENTIRELY separate groups?" No, the words "Lamanite" and "Chinese" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Native American doesn't necessarily mean they are pure blooded descendants of Lehi, but he's stretched this one too far to fit.

"Internet Mormons believe that the only real and binding doctrine in Mormonism is that found between the covers of the four Standard Works--all else is mere conjecture. Chapel Mormons believe that real and binding doctrine is that which is accepted and believed by the majority of the Saints (in practice, this means that they accept the overwhelming majority of what they learn in church and in the church's official publications in addition to the four Standard Works)."

Again, the comparison is simply stretched beyond its ability to hold water. Do "Internet Mormons" think President Hinckley does nothing more than try to guess what the scriptures are saying every six months? Do "Chapel Mormons" equate the Sunday School teacher with Nephi?

"Chapel Mormons believe that a prophet is a foreordained man of the highest moral caliber. Internet Mormons believe that a prophet is not necessarily any better than his societal average."

Anybody care to try to compare their moral caliber with ANY ONE of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve? I submit that you'd be laughed out of the room. But even in the chapel, the concept of a fallible prophet is as important as the concept of an infallible God.

There's just too much effort to characterize church members as polarized. They just aren't as separated as he's trying to depict.

[DrumNFeather]

Out of curiousity, does this impact anyone's testimony? I don't mean to over simplify the issue at hand here, but with this concept of "internet" vs. "chapel" we're really talking about people who consider themselves more informed then the average lds person...so my question is, is being more informed or reading quotes that don't quite gell with the teachings of the church as it currently stands impact your or ones testimony? Is it enough to walk away from the church?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Out of curiousity, does this impact anyone's testimony? I don't mean to over simplify the issue at hand here, but with this concept of "internet" vs. "chapel" we're really talking about people who consider themselves more informed then the average lds person...so my question is, is being more informed or reading quotes that don't quite gell with the teachings of the church as it currently stands impact your or ones testimony? Is it enough to walk away from the church?

In all honesty, there are some issues that are very troubling and I don't understand how anybody who is honest with himself does not struggle with certain theological inconsistencies. We needn't present a laundry list here but I think anybody who has done anytype of scholarship on certain subjects finds himself wrestling with the implications, and what he should do.

[Archaea]

To be troubled is one thing.

Life is living, evolving and full of constant changes.

You can "trouble" yourself out of any organization. If you think but do not act, then you will likely be nothing more than a nihilist, which is in many respects the end of all logic.