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

[_Danse Macabre]

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!

Sounds like they have you pegged - I did read a thread about some folks from here going over and messing with the folk's mind there, didn't I?

[_Polygamy Porter]

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).

If you still feel the need to post on their silly board, just use a public proxy server.

http://www.publicproxyservers.com/

[_Inconceivable]

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.

Danish guy,

2 years ago, a GA beat you to it. This is not edgy by any stretch.

I still don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that your church permits you (with little restraint) to teach historical truth in venues such as Gospel Doctrine and Elders Quorem meeting?

Then I would suggest a few great discussions for your ward to participate in:

* The angel with a flaming sword: when God justifies Satan's plan
* Justification of practicing the Lord's works in secret
* State/federal law relating to the legality/punishment of practicing plural marriage in the 1830's to 1850's
* Joseph Smith's revelation from God to leave Nauvoo prior to his gunfight
* Why the pioneers are reverred as faithful when most disobeyed Brigham Young's revelation to remain in Nauvoo, resulting in much of the tragedy during the first months of the exodus.
* If Joseph Smith drank, why is the story of his abstaining from doctor prescribed alcohol at the age of 10 canonized?
* The purpose of changing the word "wives" to "wife" in "Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young"
* What is the church's official doctrine concerning the Journal of Discourses and why can it only be quoted in talks and manuals approved by GA's
* History of the lives of Joseph Smith's wives, including vivid recollections of BF Johnson
* Why Emma Smith lied about poligamy in order to start the RLDS church?
* Reading of the Nauvoo Expositor and finding the false accusations (where is Waldo?)
* How it is more tolerable to having your son or daughter come home in a box than to lose their virtue
* What color people may be that inhabit the moon. Did the US actually meet them when they landed there?
* Official church doctrine as to why the negro was not permitted to hold the priesthood
* Why interatial marriage is not accepted/sanctioned by God or His church
* What was actually found at the Metropolitan Museum in 1968?
* An in depth study of the Joseph Smith alphabet used in the translation of the Book of Abraham
* What is the true meaning of the word translation? Was the Webster's definition different in the 1800's?
* Study of all existing accounts of the first vision
* In dept study of Jacob 2-3, and D&C 132 - comparison and contrast
* God's commandment for his covenant people to administer genocide, justification of taking the lives of men, women and children
* Why the term "special witness" no longer has a clear definition
* Why 10% (tithing) is primarilly used to build chapels, temples, malls and schools rather than feed the hungry etc.
* Why Mormons are disfellowshipped/excommunicated for writing books that contain historical accuracies
* Why God no more requires we suffer our lives to be taken if we divulge temple names, signs and tokens
* Why God no longer requires us to covenant to avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith
* Why does official church doctrine (the mind and will of the Lord) change over time when truth is eternal
* Why is the official church doctrine "All or Nothing"?
* Why is it even necessary to apologise for God or His Special Witnesses?
* To be accredited as a Mormon scholar, must we be "trained for the ministry" or can we learn on our own from personal study and revelation?
* What is more damaging to testimony? Internet porn or Internet searches concerning the church's historical accuracy?

There are just as many more where these came from, but this is a good start.

Now, if you are familiar with only half of these topics you are still a little green. If you are aware of all and then some, and still remain "faithful", I would place you in a category separate from those that I believe are deceived.

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

Actually, Bond wasn't quite correct on what makes a Chapel Mormon vs. what makes an Internet Mormon. Although it can correlate to the amount of exposure a Mormon has had to the embarrassing aspects of church history, it doesn't always. More specifically, it refers to a traditional vs. avant-garde subset of LDS beliefs. Read on:

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).

Yes, they do. Fortunately, they already have. For the definitive treatment of this subject, see:

Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons: Has the LDS Church split into two separate religions (without even knowing it)?

[_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.

Danish guy,

2 years ago, a GA beat you to it. This is not edgy by any stretch.

I still don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that your church permits you (with little restraint) to teach historical truth in venues such as Gospel Doctrine and Elders Quorem meeting?

Then I would suggest a few great discussions for your ward to participate in:

* The angel with a flaming sword: when God justifies Satan's plan
* Justification of practicing the Lord's works in secret
* State/federal law relating to the legality/punishment of practicing plural marriage in the 1830's to 1850's
* Joseph Smith's revelation from God to leave Nauvoo prior to his gunfight
* Why the pioneers are reverred as faithful when most disobeyed Brigham Young's revelation to remain in Nauvoo, resulting in much of the tragedy during the first months of the exodus.
* If Joseph Smith drank, why is the story of his abstaining from doctor prescribed alcohol at the age of 10 canonized?
* The purpose of changing the word "wives" to "wife" in "Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young"
* What is the church's official doctrine concerning the Journal of Discourses and why can it only be quoted in talks and manuals approved by GA's
* History of the lives of Joseph Smith's wives, including vivid recollections of BF Johnson
* Why Emma Smith lied about poligamy in order to start the RLDS church?
* Reading of the Nauvoo Expositor and finding the false accusations (where is Waldo?)
* How it is more tolerable to having your son or daughter come home in a box than to lose their virtue
* What color people may be that inhabit the moon. Did the US actually meet them when they landed there?
* Official church doctrine as to why the negro was not permitted to hold the priesthood
* Why interatial marriage is not accepted/sanctioned by God or His church
* What was actually found at the Metropolitan Museum in 1968?
* An in depth study of the Joseph Smith alphabet used in the translation of the Book of Abraham
* What is the true meaning of the word translation? Was the Webster's definition different in the 1800's?
* Study of all existing accounts of the first vision
* In dept study of Jacob 2-3, and D&C 132 - comparison and contrast
* God's commandment for his covenant people to administer genocide, justification of taking the lives of men, women and children
* Why the term "special witness" no longer has a clear definition
* Why 10% (tithing) is primarilly used to build chapels, temples, malls and schools rather than feed the hungry etc.
* Why Mormons are disfellowshipped/excommunicated for writing books that contain historical accuracies
* Why God no more requires we suffer our lives to be taken if we divulge temple names, signs and tokens
* Why God no longer requires us to covenant to avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith
* Why does official church doctrine (the mind and will of the Lord) change over time when truth is eternal
* Why is the official church doctrine "All or Nothing"?
* Why is it even necessary to apologise for God or His Special Witnesses?
* To be accredited as a Mormon scholar, must we be "trained for the ministry" or can we learn on our own from personal study and revelation?
* What is more damaging to testimony? Internet porn or Internet searches concerning the church's historical accuracy?

There are just as many more where these came from, but this is a good start.

Now, if you are familiar with only half of these topics you are still a little green. If you are aware of all and then some, and still remain "faithful", I would place you in a category separate from those that I believe are deceived.

The point is not that it's edgy, the point is that we talk about whatever we want and it's no big deal. You, it seems, thinks its a big deal - that you are the possessor of some secret knowledge that only the intiated are privy to and somehow that makes you special. What I see here, and what apparently passes for critical thinking here, is about as dogmatic as Mormons or Catholics or whoever you think you are more informed than.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Some people do seem to relish the fact that they have superior knowledge in a topic than others. I've had Bible scripture spewn on me and I know it was with derision and knowledge that I didn't understand most of the context (although I did get that I'm of the devil).

I certainly am not aware of most things LDS, nor claim to be. I have such limited knowledge of Christianity in general I'm not one upping anyone. My concern with what LDS (and this is limited to one person) do not know is when they believe things are lies that are in actuality the truth. Now this is my husband's prerogative, as a father, to discuss issues with his son as he sees fit. That my husband attempts to understand the LDS *take* on the history is actually admirable in my book.

I think extra information at certain times can be fairly useful. If the bridge was out I hope someone would pass that tidbit onto me.

[_Inconceivable]

The point is not that it's edgy, the point is that we talk about whatever we want and it's no big deal. You, it seems, thinks its a big deal - that you are the possessor of some secret knowledge that only the intiated are privy to and somehow that makes you special. What I see here, and what apparently passes for critical thinking here, is about as dogmatic as Mormons or Catholics or whoever you think you are more informed than.

I attended faithfully all my life and am in my 40's. I've been active in 8 wards. I taught Gospel Doctrine, Elders Quorem for many years.

Never did anyone bring up any of these contraversial subjects.

I did a modicum amount of reading in my spare time including books on Joseph Smith (his diaries), Porter Rockwell, History of the Church by BH Roberts. I learned a few tidbits from these, but like nearly all members, I never put 2 and 2 together.

The fact of the matter is that you can grow old in the church and never stumble across the subjects above. Mormons are taught that if it doesn't make sense, just trust the current leadership and it will all work out through prayer (or forgetfulness). Besides, I was too busy in the church performing mantras to really get tangled up in this stuff.

And no, nothing special about me or the information I'm aware of. But now that I know, that's it.

[_Danse Macabre]

I certainly am not aware of most things LDS, nor claim to be. I have such limited knowledge of Christianity in general I'm not one upping anyone. My concern with what LDS (and this is limited to one person) do not know is when they believe things are lies that are in actuality the truth. Now this is my husband's prerogative, as a father, to discuss issues with his son as he sees fit. That my husband attempts to understand the LDS *take* on the history is actually admirable in my book.

Not sure exactly what your point was - the grammar was a bit spotty but if I understand correctly... When people have a certain opinion and then start calling those that have a different opinion liars, it's fairly obvious that the person is an idealogue - one who speaks from a dogmatic position. You sound like an idealogue.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I certainly am not aware of most things LDS, nor claim to be. I have such limited knowledge of Christianity in general I'm not one upping anyone. My concern with what LDS (and this is limited to one person) do not know is when they believe things are lies that are in actuality the truth. Now this is my husband's prerogative, as a father, to discuss issues with his son as he sees fit. That my husband attempts to understand the LDS *take* on the history is actually admirable in my book.

Not sure exactly what your point was - the grammar was a bit spotty but if I understand correctly... When people have a certain opinion and then start calling those that have a different opinion liars, it's fairly obvious that the person is an idealogue - one who speaks from a dogmatic position. You sound like an idealogue.

Sorry, I'll try to run my posts through CKSalmon from now on.
Do I call anyone a liar? No. How can you possibly call me an ideologue? Of course you called me an idealogue, which is not what you really meant. Perhaps you should keep your dictionary handy. What in the world are you talking about? I may have difficulty with grammar. You have difficulty with reading comprehension.

It's not an opinion that there is an endowment ceremony. It is not an opinion that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Others are called liars for knowing this/stating this. This is no disagreement over opinion.

[_Danse Macabre]

I attended faithfully all my life and am in my 40's. I've been active in 8 wards. I taught Gospel Doctrine, Elders Quorem for many years.

Never did anyone bring up any of these contraversial subjects.

I did a modicum amount of reading in my spare time including books on Joseph Smith (his diaries), Porter Rockwell, History of the Church by BH Roberts. I learned a few tidbits from these, but like nearly all members, I never put 2 and 2 together.

The fact of the matter is that you can grow old in the church and never stumble across the subjects above. Mormons are taught that if it doesn't make sense, just trust the current leadership and it will all work out through prayer (or forgetfulness). Besides, I was too busy in the church performing mantras to really get tangled up in this stuff.

And no, nothing special about me or the information I'm aware of. But now that I know, that's it.

I certainly understand that one can slumber through life without much critical thought, inquiry and in-depth learning. I know that like you describe your previous self exist. I don't blame you for it - if you were a happy and ethical person - that's great. I on the other hand have always been the curious sort and learning or hearing one thing led me to the next and to the next. I find so many people like myself at every step that I am no longer surprized.

I attend a big study group from time to time. Michael Quinn and Todd Compton and others like have been speakers and participants over the years, so it's the kind of group that eats up the kind of stuff discussed on this board, though we don't bother much with the wild speculation, it's more scholarly if you will. I was not surprized to discover that a bunch of people from my ward - a bunch of old fogey High Priests and their wives attended the same group from time to time. I run across people like me - or people like you now - that know all the "stuff" all the time in church. Sure - I believe that your experience but that hasn't been my experience. I guess it's a matter of who you hang out with.