The Responsibility of Church Leaders....

[_James Clifford Miller]

Wow! I was not aware of this. From posting on MAD I thought most LDS did not believe in a literal garden of eden. I'm really surprised by this.

Let's back up a little. The people on MAD are what's called "Internet Mormons." They differ quite vastly from the "Chapel Mormons" which make up at least 95% of the rest of Mormondom.

To better get a grasp of the situation, I recommend reading Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons before your next visit to MAD.

I've taken the Shades quiz. I come out of it as a "chapel Mormon."

Yet, I suspect, I'm supposed to be the quintessential "internet Mormon."

His "vast" dichotomy is bogus.

I'm surprised that you claim to be a Chapel Mormon. Chapel Mormons believe in the Global Hypothesis, but I'm quite sure you've expressed your belief in the Limited Geographic Hypothesis. In fact, on virtually all the Book of Mormon points, I believe I can document your Internet Mormon beliefs rather than your Chapel Mormon beliefs.

If I successfully document your Internet Mormon beliefs, wouldn't that invalidate your attack on Shades dichotomy?

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_guy sajer]

It's not my disagreement with Shades's categories that renders them dubious. They're undermined by the fact that, according to the profile generated by my answers to his diagnostic questions, I plainly violate his neat little schematization.

I suspect that all, or nearly all, schematizations are not neat in practice and probably not intended to be neat in theory. They are pretty much all rough approximations/generalizations, and despite what their creators may claim for them, cannot predict/explain individual-level variations with much accuracy. The real issue is whether they accurately, or reasonably accurately, capture general trends or characteristics.

Humans are complex beings and beggar any kind of easy classification (as a group, not necessarily as individuals).

So, the fact that Shade's internet vs. chapel Mormon dichotomy doesn't explain you, or anyone in particular, does not necessarily invalidate it. The question is whether it is generally accurate.

It's been a long time since I've looked at it, but my recollection is that it does capture some broad general distinctions between different types of believing Mormons. It's useful for explaining and understanding these distinctions, but not useful as a catch-all explanation.

When describing human behavior, we have little choice but to resort to generalizations of some kind or another. The inherent error in all social explanations is what makes social science messy.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I can just say that on MAD when someone started a thread on the Flood actually being a Global Flood not one LDS replied to his thread to back him up. Those that are ex-LDS came in and directed him to some facts... you could hear the internet crickets chirping waiting for the LDS to weigh in. Didn't happen.

[_Jason Bourne]

Nope, she dresses like a real woman drinks beer with me and refers to LDS Inc as the F'ing cult.

She will be hanging out with me in the lower kingdoms... look us up when you get there alone. I am sure the Gaz God will allow your wife to write you letters.

Oh yes, I forgot you are both out of the Church. Ah well. If I am with you we will have to have a party. I imagine there will be some single gals there if my wifey is taken and given. But really, I think that part is well, hooey. And yes I guess I do pick and choose. Mock me now if you wish.

*Porter points boney finger as he gasps and giggles*

Meany. :-P

[_Yoda]

Meany. :-P

Don't let PP get to you, babe. ;)

We'll have our own private party if polygamy turns out to be the "norm" in the next life.

PP's not invited...unless he quits being a meany. LOL

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I am not sure which book but unfortunately they did not ask me about it.

"When the wife is faithful and desires to obey the divine law and the husband is rebellious, or unwilling to obey the will of the Lord, if she maintains her integrity to the best of her ability, she will be given to another husband in eternity and will receive all the blessings of the celestial kingdom" Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:24.

Wow, it sounds like the Mormon afterlife is going to be a big wife swapping party. Maybe I need to get back to church;) This doesn't sound so bad after all. In the upper kingdom they will be passing out wives whose husbands weren't valiant enough. Meanwhile, the newly single husbands will be in the lower kingdom partying with the rebellious single chicks. Either way you can't lose, if you're a guy.

[_Maxrep]

The story of the 12 year old from BofMonkeys is a perfect example of members that have fed this boy lies or whom may actually believe Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. It isn't just the leadership responsible, but also members of the church who stay silent when a member repeats church beliefs they know to be false. I know a few TBMs who allowed me to believe myths in discussions we had about polygamy and when I later confronted them about what I had learned, they acted shocked that I didn't know the truth. Most are Chapel Mormons though and believe Joseph didn't have sex with anybody except for Emma, and the ones who know the truth will hide it, so it's doubtful there will be any TBM the 12 year old straight.

My experience is that church leaders have no interest in offering corrections with regards to awkward subject matter. "Let sleeping dogs lie", seems to be the general mode of operation. But what about a direct doctrinal question from a member to a leader? The following is just a personal experience ........ ;

As a missionary, I became well versed in the scriptures and all approved reading materials. I enjoyed getting up well before my companions and studying each morning and then in the evenings. Despite being the most well read Elder in my mission field, I had know idea how confined my learning had been. One day while tracting, we were told by an individual that Joseph was a treasure hunter. Those Damn anti Mormon lies! Do they have no decency?! The following Sunday I mentioned this experience to the local bishop.

Bishop: " Joseph, as a youth, worked in a local silver mine for some time. From his employ there, anti Mormons have twisted this story to one of a greedy treasure hunting career."

WoW! From my perspective the Bishops reply made perfect sense. I had no way of checking his story even if I had suspected anything wrong with it. We were only allowed to read pre selected material. I had even asked my mission president if I could read doctrines of salvation, but was told not to.

I think Boyd said it best, "Not everything that is true is very useful." I should have asked the Bishop about something more useful.........

[_Jason Bourne]

Meany. :-P

Don't let PP get to you, babe. ;)

We'll have our own private party if polygamy turns out to be the "norm" in the next life.

PP's not invited...unless he quits being a meany. LOL

Now THAT sounds like a plan!!

[_Some Schmo]

Wow, it sounds like the Mormon afterlife is going to be a big wife swapping party. Maybe I need to get back to church;) This doesn't sound so bad after all. In the upper kingdom they will be passing out wives whose husbands weren't valiant enough. Meanwhile, the newly single husbands will be in the lower kingdom partying with the rebellious single chicks. Either way you can't lose, if you're a guy.

And what's really great is that all the really loose chicks won't have STD's anymore, so it'll be one sweet, worry-less free-for-all.

[_Blixa]

And what's really great is that all the really loose chicks won't have STD's anymore, so it'll be one sweet, worry-less free-for-all.

What about you really loose guys, Schmo? Think you're gonna get all un-licked?

Anyway, in my recollection none of those in the lower kingdoms get to have heaven-sex and/or are resurrected sans genitalia. I think the standard answer is that they will be relegated to "ministering" to the happy souls in the three gated communities of the Celestial Kingdom (which alway put me mind of them being some sort of angelic "fluffers.")