juliann's Paranoia Erupts in Anger

Post by **_grayskull** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:50 am

I'll admit I at one time completely bought Shades's Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon distinction. I've come to reject it however, it has a serious flaw.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:01 am

Do let the rest of us in on the secret.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:54 pm

grayskull wrote:I'll admit I at one time completely bought Shades's Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon distinction. I've come to reject it however, it has a serious flaw.

What, that's it's true, and that Mormons have a hard time with the truth?

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:56 pm

grayskull wrote:I'll admit I at one time completely bought Shades's Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon distinction. I've come to reject it however, it has a serious flaw.

An apologist didn't think of it first?

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:59 pm

Some Schmo wrote:
grayskull wrote:I'll admit I at one time completely bought Shades's Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon distinction. I've come to reject it however, it has a serious flaw.

What, that's it's true, and that Mormons have a hard time with the truth?

You want the truth?...

Query:

Was BH Roberts -- by default -- a chapel Mormon?

Post by **_grayskull** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:25 pm

I don't have a lot of time right now so I won't really argue for my position, rather, I'll just state it and give an analogy. Dr. Shades has been clear that there is a spectrum with Chapel Mormonism on one end and Internet Mormonism on the other. I have come to believe this view is false, and that if you are Mormon, you are either 100% Chapel Mormon or 100% Internet Mormon. It's a binary, black and white matter.

By analogy:

I'm holding either a duck or a dog behind my back. I agree to answer questions such as, "Is it an animal?" or "Is it soft?". The questioner will come to some kind of certainty as to which animal I'm hiding. But, quite independently, it remains true that what is behind my back is either 100% duck or 100% dog.

Post by **_Blixa** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:28 pm

That's the fatal flaw? Its not a problem with the overall concept, just how each category is defined?

That seems more like a revision of an idea, rather than a dropping of it.

Post by **_moksha** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:32 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote: Query:

Was BH Roberts -- by default -- a chapel Mormon?

He had all the makings of an internet Mormon without the internet.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:34 pm

harmony wrote:
grayskull wrote:I'll admit I at one time completely bought Shades's Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon distinction. I've come to reject it however, it has a serious flaw.

An apologist didn't think of it first?

LOL! Good one!

;)

Post by **_moksha** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:37 pm

grayskull wrote:By analogy:

I'm holding either a duck or a dog behind my back. I agree to answer questions such as, "Is it an animal?" or "Is it soft?". The questioner will come to some kind of certainty as to which animal I'm hiding. But, quite independently, it remains true that what is behind my back is either 100% duck or 100% dog.

You obviously missed the wisdom lessons of Bullwinkle J. Moose somewhere along the way. From behind his back, he would have brought forth a chimera that would have been part duck and part dog (with perhaps a little goat thrown in). Life is like that when you talk about types of human characteristics.