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

[_Inconceivable]

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.

Jason,

I don't think it's so much that he doesn't care to know more about what you know. I think it's because he's unwilling to believe you. Part of it is our approach or marketing technique. The church is well established, it's big. We're just a few clowns with conspiracy theories. Who wants to get caught up in clouding our perspective of things that appear stable?

I never had a clue that the church was what it is 2 1/2 years ago. I even wrote a letter to an apostate group organizer that picketed at conference - to call him to repentance over what I considered faith destroying (like what PP does on a regular basis). The fact of the matter was that they were pretty much dead on. Their approach was just very off-putting.

It just takes the right spark when our minds are inquisitive to set them off. Most of us are here because something finally touched a nerve.

The world is different than it was 15 years ago. I don't see a mass exodus, but something is happening that is drawing the concern of the hierarchy of power. I see it in their pathetic attempts at damage control like the statement refering to the MMM posted recently on their website.

[_Danse Macabre]

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.

If, as you said in the previous post, "chapel Mormons" compared to "internet Mormons" are those that know less about Church history, etc, and that they can't survive as Chapel Mormons once they get exposed to the interent, or to more critical inquiry... well the response is Duh - Obviously. When you define chapel Mormons as less educated and then they become more educated, then they are no longer less educated but instead more educated. It's a point not worth making.

If on the other hand you define chapel Mormons as faithful and active Mormons then your point is simply wrong. I don't know who you guys hang out with but the Mormons I hang out with, my friends, my family, etc, are well informed to various degrees about whatever issues you think qualifies one to be an internet Mormon and remain active, faithful Mormons still. Frankly, much of the stuff on this board (and I haven't seen that much of it), is hardly earth-shaking. It's the kind of such I used to teach in Elder's Quorum. No one got bent, no one complained to the Bishop (that he ever told me about). Two years ago I taught a lesson on the real translation process of the Book of Mormon (peep stone - hat, etc, the whole deal). The EQ President thought it was so interesting he went and got the deacons, priests, and teachers to come join us and asked me to carry it over for a 2nd part the following week.

[_harmony]

Two years ago I taught a lesson on the real translation process of the Book of Mormon (peep stone - hat, etc, the whole deal). The EQ President thought it was so interesting he went and got the deacons, priests, and teachers to come join us and asked me to carry it over for a 2nd part the following week.

Ah, so the real translation process of the Book of Mormon is the rock in the hat? No, Danse. Sorry. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are several others, just as plausible, some of them more plausible. I doubt you'd present those in EQ. The anchored thread at the top of this forum is a prime example of what you wouldn't ever present in EQ, yet is common for Internet Mormons to know about.

It's not the rock in the hat that makes a Chapel Mormon into an Internet Mormon. It's all the others (I'm especially fond of the one about Martin Harris dressing up like an angel. Very plausible.)

[_Danse Macabre]

Two years ago I taught a lesson on the real translation process of the Book of Mormon (peep stone - hat, etc, the whole deal). The EQ President thought it was so interesting he went and got the deacons, priests, and teachers to come join us and asked me to carry it over for a 2nd part the following week.

Ah, so the real translation process of the Book of Mormon is the rock in the hat? No, Danse. Sorry. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are several others, just as plausible, some of them more plausible. I doubt you'd present those in EQ. The anchored thread at the top of this forum is a prime example of what you wouldn't ever present in EQ, yet is common for Internet Mormons to know about.

It's not the rock in the hat that makes a Chapel Mormon into an Internet Mormon. It's all the others (I'm especially fond of the one about Martin Harris dressing up like an angel. Very plausible.)

Well - you'd be wrong. We discuss all sorts of things - even conspiracy theories, even the nutty ones.

[_Danse Macabre]

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.

I think that some people need to be under the impression that they hold some esoteric knowledge that makes them special - a cut above. I find that in practice, that ain't necessarily so. Even when someone does in fact know some good stuff, that don't necessarily make em any better off than anybody else.

[_harmony]

Two years ago I taught a lesson on the real translation process of the Book of Mormon (peep stone - hat, etc, the whole deal). The EQ President thought it was so interesting he went and got the deacons, priests, and teachers to come join us and asked me to carry it over for a 2nd part the following week.

Ah, so the real translation process of the Book of Mormon is the rock in the hat? No, Danse. Sorry. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are several others, just as plausible, some of them more plausible. I doubt you'd present those in EQ. The anchored thread at the top of this forum is a prime example of what you wouldn't ever present in EQ, yet is common for Internet Mormons to know about.

It's not the rock in the hat that makes a Chapel Mormon into an Internet Mormon. It's all the others (I'm especially fond of the one about Martin Harris dressing up like an angel. Very plausible.)

Well - you'd be wrong. We discuss all sorts of things - even conspiracy theories, even the nutty ones.

Well, if you label everything but the official story as "conspiracy theories" and "nutty conspiracy theories", no wonder you have "discussions."

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Yes.

I do, for example.

I've taken the Shades Internet/Chapel Test several times, and, each time, have emerged a Chapel Mormon.

[_Mephitus]

I was just banned for calling out "chapel Mormons" over on the ldstalk.com boards. you can see it here. http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php ... 9426&st=15 I didn't even do anything evil!

[_Bond...James Bond]

I was just banned for calling out "chapel Mormons" over on the ldstalk.com boards. you can see it here. http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php ... 9426&st=15 I didn't even do anything evil!

I apparently did.....I have my IP banned from there and everything. I thing I've been spoiled on the free speech issue on these LDS sites because I cut my teeth on MAD and MDB, where there is infinitely more speech than these constant testimony meetings known as "ldstalk.com" and "ldsforums.com".

Also....do Chapel and Internet Mormon need to be defined a bit better (because my idea of what they are and someone else's might be different).

[_Danse Macabre]

Well, if you label everything but the official story as "conspiracy theories" and "nutty conspiracy theories", no wonder you have "discussions."

There you go then - I allude to a conspiracy theory (which by definition the Spalding Rigdon theory is) and nutty theories (which many think it is) and you somehow turn that into "everything." It's almost like your conditioned.