Is it possible for Chapel Mormons to post on the Internet?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Not making light of your post here - but so what.

Well you are making light of my post. And being rather rude in the process.

The world is full of all sorts of people, the sophisticated, the naïve, the orthodox, the dogmatic, seekers, critical thinkers, etc. Being Mormon or Jewish or whatever doesn't dismiss one from the human race.

Right, and as a mother it is in my nature and my responsibility to ensure each of my children are raised in a healthy environment where all of their needs are met, including their emotional needs. My husband has a strained relationship with his son and I try to bridge the gap, because it is in my nature. Perhaps I shouldn't do that, but I do. The child is 12, he's not a critical thinker, he is being told things and he believes them and it is alienting him from his father. This is very detrimental to a child's well being and is labeled as parental alienation syndrome.

Last year Richard Bushman and a few BYU professors did a Saturday Joseph Smith symposium at one of our local Stake Centers. Joseph Smith polyandry and sexual relationships within plural marriage was freely discussed, (among other interesting material) and no one batted an eye. The Church, like the world, is full of bright, inquiring minds.

Umm.. so what? My step-son and his mom and step-father weren't there. Doesn't help the situation does it?

Please don't respond to me again. You are rude.

[_Inconceivable]

What got me started down the rabbit hole was an innocent question regarding whether or not Joseph (my hero) and Emma (the hym book and relief society founder) had any surviving children.

No, none of their children are surviving. Joseph was murdered in June 1844, so even if they conceived a child the night before, the kid would've been born in early 1845, which was a full 162 years ago. That's about 40 years longer than the oldest person on record, so no, none of their children are surviving.

Seriously, I meant children that survived childbirth. They had some trouble getting most of them past the birth canal.

[_Danse Macabre]

Not making light of your post here - but so what.

Well you are making light of my post. And being rather rude in the process.

The world is full of all sorts of people, the sophisticated, the naïve, the orthodox, the dogmatic, seekers, critical thinkers, etc. Being Mormon or Jewish or whatever doesn't dismiss one from the human race.

Right, and as a mother it is in my nature and my responsibility to ensure each of my children are raised in a healthy environment where all of their needs are met, including their emotional needs. My husband has a strained relationship with his son and I try to bridge the gap, because it is in my nature. Perhaps I shouldn't do that, but I do. The child is 12, he's not a critical thinker, he is being told things and he believes them and it is alienting him from his father. This is very detrimental to a child's well being and is labeled as parental alienation syndrome.

Last year Richard Bushman and a few BYU professors did a Saturday Joseph Smith symposium at one of our local Stake Centers. Joseph Smith polyandry and sexual relationships within plural marriage was freely discussed, (among other interesting material) and no one batted an eye. The Church, like the world, is full of bright, inquiring minds.

Umm.. so what? My step-son and his mom and step-father weren't there. Doesn't help the situation does it?

Please don't respond to me again. You are rude.

Gee - don't you think that's a bit over the top? Like I even know who you are referring to or why you are hyper-sensitive about it.

You're the one that responded to me and I certainly didn't make light of your post, merely put it in perspective.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm - new here.

Seems to me your living in a bit of a fantasy land. I haven't looked around the site much - this being one of my first threads but I can't imagine that there's any subject here that isn't known and 'not worried about' by the "Chapel" Mormons I know.

This stuff seems tired and pedestrian.

Hi Danse! Welcome aboard.

I think the whole idea of a "Chapel" Mormon is that they don't know the entirety of Church History, as opposed to "Internet" Mormons who are more aware of the various arguments that can be made against historical claims made against the Book of Mormon and so forth. I'm guessing there are quite a few Mormons who are content with what they've been told in Church, and are unable or unwilling to even examine the whole picture (or that they're even aware a "whole picture" exists outside the bounds of what they've been told in church).

[_Bond...James Bond]

The number of Mormons that post on web pages that debate the religion is limited. Most active members will avoid negative criticism and not engage in it.

Exactly! Chapel Mormons can't survive as Chapel Mormons on the Net....particularly on message boards. They either don't participate or morph into Internet Mormons.

[_Dr. Shades]

Exactly! Chapel Mormons can't survive as Chapel Mormons on the Net....particularly on message boards. They either don't participate or morph into Internet Mormons.

Or they become ex-Mormons.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Or they become ex-Mormons.

Well yeah. ;-P

[_barrelomonkeys]

Gee - don't you think that's a bit over the top? Like I even know who you are referring to or why you are hyper-sensitive about it.

It's over the top to explain the situation more fully (the thread is about LDS and if they can survive on the internet and you popped in to say they all know everything anyway) and to explain my personal experience with the topic? It's then over the top to feel that you're being rude by saying "So what?" I don't really think so.

I'm not hypersensitive about LDS or really even my step-son. I just don't like rude people too much. I explained why my understanding of the issue was different than yours and you said "so what" and went on elaborating about things that had really nothing to do with my post.

You're the one that responded to me and I certainly didn't make light of your post, merely put it in perspective.

You're correct I did respond to you. I explained how my view on the matter was a bit different than yours. And you didn't put anything into perspective for me.

[_Yoda]

Not making light of your post here - but so what. The world is full of all sorts of people, the sophisticated, the naïve, the orthodox, the dogmatic, seekers, critical thinkers, etc. Being Mormon or Jewish or whatever doesn't dismiss one from the human race.

Book of Mormon wasn't saying that it did. No one here was indicating that it did.

Last year Richard Bushman and a few BYU professors did a Saturday Joseph Smith symposium at one of our local Stake Centers. Joseph Smith polyandry and sexual relationships within plural marriage was freely discussed, (among other interesting material) and no one batted an eye. The Church, like the world, is full of bright, inquiring minds.

Agreed. There are many members of the Church who are educated, but there are also many members who have not had the opportunity to attend a BYU religion class or Institute class, where things are discussed a little more critically than they are in a typical Sunday School classroom.

From Book of Mormon's post, it's obvious that her stepson's mother and stepfather are of the less informed variety, which can obviously cause strife on the home front, when all she, as a part-time parent, is trying to do, is care for her stepson, her husband, and maintain peace in the home.

In that vein, yes, your comments were rude. You may not have meant them to be, but they did come across that way in light of what Book of Mormon was speaking of.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hmmm - new here.

Seems to me your living in a bit of a fantasy land. I haven't looked around the site much - this being one of my first threads but I can't imagine that there's any subject here that isn't known and 'not worried about' by the "Chapel" Mormons I know.

This stuff seems tired and pedestrian.

Hi, and welcome. :)

I can tell you that I have a few members of my family that are LDS that are completely unaware of much of Church history. They believe most of the stuff you find "tired and pedestrian" are actually lies created by anti-Mormons. It's unfortunate really that they are not aware of the history. I don't seek to hurt their testimony, or their faith, but I think it's important they understand the truth and not assume other people hate them when they do speak the truth.

Again, welcome to the board.

Thank you for the welcome.

I can only go by those that I know best... my mother and siblings, my wife, my children, my local Elder's Quorum, my LDS friends, etc - they don't all know all the same things but they know as much as they care to and aren't bothered by what some here seem to think is potentially harmful (to the orthodox).

I don't know if it's important that they "understand the truth" as you put it. I personally find it interesting but it doesn't make or not make me a better person.

I have served in lots of various leadership positions. Those I work with are almost always ingorant of sticky church history issues. For example, polygamy. They think we did it becuase there were more women then men, so we were helping the women out. They also do not have a clue about polyandry and they do not have a clue that 19th century leaders taught that polygamy was necesary to be exalted.

I think the key is "they know as much as they care." Most don't care to know much. One of my best LDS friends has said exactly that. He loves what the Church has done for him and his life. The icky detials he would just as soon pass on. That is ok but I really don't think many know what you think they may.