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.
I believe in LDS apologetics one must take the path that prophets are actually only acting like prophets a very small amount of time. Yes Joseph Smith did say he was a prophet only when acting in the role. And I am ok with this. But when defending, it seems prophets are often not acting as prophets. I have done this myself!
When the apologists contradict the prophets, Internet Mormons almost always go with the apologists, while Chapel Mormons almost always go with the prophets.
This is rather general but I get your point and see it illustrated in the LGT theory the best.
Internet Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups.
Are you sure? I though FARMS position is only that there were other people here that the Nephites mingled with.
Chapel Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" are interchangeable.
I think most LDS believe that the natives of North and South America are indeed the descendents of Lehi. I believe FARMs believes this at least to the extent the Lehi's blood was mingled into the natives that were here. But as a kid and growing up the theories of the land bridge and Asians migrating here uses to cause me to wonder.
Internet Mormons believe that Noah's flood was a localized event, covering only a certain area. Chapel Mormons usually believe that Noah's flood was a global event, covering the entire world.
I think what you call Chapel Mormons debate this as well.
When discussing prophetic utterances, Internet Mormons often say "it was only his opinion." Chapel Mormons almost never say "it was only his opinion," believing that a prophet's words and God's words are essentially one and the same.
This is the most accurate. I recall being quite fond of Pres Benson's 14 points about a prophet, Bruce McConkie's stand on prophets not having to say thus saith the Lord for it to be binding and doctrine as well as the idea that the conference Ensign is current scripture. Then as an apologist I back peddled on that big time and became more of what you describe above.
Internet Mormons believe that FARMS is correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located somewhere in Mesoamerica. Chapel Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located in Western New York and was the same hill from which he retrieved the Golden Plates
This one you overstate. many so called chapel Mormons debate this hotly.
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).
Not really. I have quoted a few times here two prophets who use the standard works as the measuring rod for truth and binding doctrine. Also, see the thread on canon here where plu certainly argues differently on this.
[*]Internet Mormons tend to want to "filter" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge. Chapel Mormons tend to take a prophet's words at face value.[*]Internet Mormons believe that the scriptures supersede the living prophets. Chapel Mormons believe that the living prophets supersede the scriptures.[*]Internet Mormons believe that a prophet's words may not apply to at least some of the people he's addressing. Chapel Mormons tend to believe that a prophet's words apply to everyone he's addressing.[*]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.[/list]Related to that last bullet point, see the quote from Beastie in my signature line, below.
Well this is an interesting list and the last ones seem to be the major problem. I think it is because the LDS leaders through the years have said things we are not happy about and taught things we certainly do not believe today and in fact find odd and strange. So how can one argue out of them if what the leader said was really from God? An impossible task in for many things. So, it was only his opinion when BY taught AG and he was only acting like the majority of those in his day when he made the string and awful saying about the blacks and so it goes.