Dr. Shades - Update your Guide

[_Inconceivable]

I was told by an adult (can't remember if it was deacons or sunday school anymore, it was too long ago) that the dinosaur bones were in the Earth because the Earth was made from parts of other planets that were recycled by God. On those other planets dinosaurs had lived, but they had never actually lived on Earth.

This isn't the first time I've heard this, but I don't know where this came from originaly. Does anyone have an original sourse for this non-sense?

I'm pretty sure none of my seminary teachers originated it, but they sure spread it!

The reason this Mormon theory came about is that it makes the doctrine of the fall more explainable. Eating the fruit brought death to this world. Literalists (and there have been many prophets in this dispensation that have been) teach that nothing died (including ALL plant and animal life) until AFTER Eve ate the fruit. There are sooo many holes here.

Yeah, I was taught the dinasaur from old planets garbage too.

[_Inconceivable]

Infymus & Shades,

Your descriptions of chapel & internet Mormons seem quite dead on.

An additional observation:

The only people that would rather not agree with your definitions are the internet Mormons. Chapel Mormons are not aware of internet Mormons. If they became aware, they would either become:

1) Internet Mormons (defending the indefenseable).

2) Liberal and deceptive with chapel Mormons (like I believe NOM's are - lying during the TRI's, teaching but not teaching what they really believe, )

3) or EX-Mos.

Once you know enough of the actual history, you can't ever go back to being a chapel Mormon.

[_Inconceivable]

I find it interesting how each group views the others.

Chapel Mormon perceptions:

1) Chapel Mormon: Just giving it their best shot. Mostly faithful to doctrine. Have had spiritual witnesses that they believe are clues to the truth of the church.
Lots of subcategories within this.

2) Internet Mormons (but known more as "scholars"): Heavily educated in Mormon doctrine and can be relied upon to understand the understandable so they don't have to - Skousen, Bushman, Nibley, Andrus, DCP etc.

3) NOM's: Wolves in sheeps clothing - because they don't believe what they may appear to reflect.

4) EX-Mos: Anti Mormon, sinners. Faith destroyers. Not lost sheep anymore. Have made the incomprehensible metamorphosis from a sheep to a wolf. Or maybe they were wolves all along.

Internet Mormon perceptions:

1) Chapel Mormon: Ignorant or lazy if they don't know the history they know. Many consider themselves chapel Mormons because they refuse the concept of a distinction.

2) Internet Mormon: Is there such a thing? If there is, it is simply those that have been "trained for the ministry" or at least respected "for their much learning". Those that are truly lights to the world and even to the church. Invaluable assets to preserving the institution and integrity of the only true church on earth

3) NOM's: Many are wolves in sheeps clothing. Lukewarm at best. Whiners. Have a chance of being redeemable.

4) ExMos: Wolves

NOM's perceptions:

1) Chapel Mormon: Many would like to think they (NOM's) still have one foot at least in the foyer with these TBM's.

2) Internet Mormon: Overzealous TBM Mormons that need a reality check - need to take a chill pill.

3) NOM's: The only ones that have a bead on reality - there are really no wolves, just differing points of view.

4) ExMos: Over reacting or even over zealous in their approach. Those that have made the stupid decision to leave when "there is still so much good in the church". Have many similarities to the Internet Mormon.

ExMos Perceptions:

1) Chapel Mormon: What most used to be. TBM's, ignorant or yet unaware of the whited sepulcre called Mormonism - although sheep they are perhaps viewed as lambs to the slaughter because of what the church has deceiptfully kept from them.

2) Internet Mormon: Given up to a reprobate mind. Amoral in their approach to the past. Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Judgemental, Condescending.

3) NOM's: Fence sitters or those in transition.

4) Those that chose not to believe (calling a spade a spade) and having acted upon it.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think it is time to update your guide and add the following about Internet Mormons verses Chapel Mormons. Feel free to add and/or modify.

Gladly.

These additions are for Internet Mormons:

#1. The refusal to believe that issues or problems suffered by Ex-Mormons have occurred in the LDS Cult.

Modification number 1-The LDS Church is not a cult.

Internet Mormons rationalize issues or either outright denies such events have or could ever occur.

Modification Number 2: Rabid critic embellished event. Event may or may not have happened. Rabid critic extrapolates it to be the norm.

If the Internet Mormon actually believes the event took place, he/she rationalizes that it was a “rogue” Bishop or Stake President and was not in harmony with the Cult.

See Modification 1 and 2 above.

Modification number 3: Rabid critic marginalizes internet Mormon's anecdotal experience as much as rabid critic thinks interet Mormon rationalizes rabid critics experience.

Internet Mormons refuse to believe that there is wide spread problems with top-down canonized “law” (or CHI rules). Mormon Stakes vary greatly from Stake to Stake depending upon the religious zealotry of the leaders. Innumerable Mormons have suffered at the hands of untrained “Called of God” men who then lead, instruct, teach and otherwise have the “mantel” of “authority” over their congregations.

Modification Number 4: Internet Mormons concede that at times some leaders make mistakes, can exercise unrighteous dominion and are human. Internet Mormons have as much experience in the Church as rabid ex LDS critics and in some cases more experience. They see no reason to extropolate the anecdote of the rabid critic to the church as a whole. See modification number 2.

Internet Mormons are often quoted as stating, “You are wrong”, and “We don’t teach that.” “It isn’t in the CHI.” Or best one yet, “It was your fault.”

Modification Number 5: At times rabid critics are actually wrong, at times the Church does not teach that and at times it is not in the CHI. At times the internet Mormons are wrong.

Internet Mormons expect the discussion to be ended with the statement, “It isn’t in the CHI” or “I’ve never seen it happen.” Often they are closed to investigation.

Modification number 6: rabid critics tend to distort what internet Mormons actually say.

Cases in point:

#2. Propensity to blame the Ex-Mormon for believing “faith promoting rumors” as true fact – and to blame the Ex-Mormon for not understanding that “information” concerning their Cult was available to them if they had only “looked” for it.

I actually agree with this one. How about that!

Mormons are counseled to obey and believe every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of their leaders. This can cause sever cognitive dissonance among members who must believe what Cult leaders have instructed or taught even in light of modern scientific evidences. Any Ex-Mormon who brings up the Faith-Promoting Rumor are immediately attacked by Internet Mormons as being “idiots” (and other such names, see Bourne and Nehor) for not knowing the difference. Internet Mormons often disregard the golden rule of “Obedience is the first law of Heaven” that their Cult teaches.

Daniel C. Peterson remarked on this very issue by stating that evidences surrounding such things as Seer Stones or multiple wives of Joseph Smith were available and it was the fault of the member for not looking into such information. The blame is always laid at the feet of the member or Ex-Mormon, and not directly at the source. Internet Mormons refuse to bring into evidence the current Cult teaching manuals that avoid such issues as polygamy, seer stones, head in the hat, teenage brides, racial statements and more. These omitted items keep current members from looking outside of the Cult for answers as the majority are not even aware such items exist.

Modification Number 7: Rabid critics often do not read what some internet Mormons are saying and continue to put words in someone'e mouth that was never said. by the way, what is Faith-Promoting Rumor? And once again, I for one, understand the concern about finding things out that were not taught openly. THis is one of my biggest complaints.

#3. Propensity to blame Ex-Mormons for being sub-standard members which in turn caused them to leave the Cult.

Ex-Mormons are referred to as “crappy members” as Internet Mormons must rationalize why a person would leave the so-called “One and Only True Church on The Face Of the Earth™”. Mormons who have the same issues with the Cult yet are still active members are not held in the same respect.

This one at times does have merit.

#4. Insistence on the fact that Ex-Mormons are “Angry”, “Bitter”, “Hateful”.

Any Ex-Mormon, or non-Mormon who does not agree with the doctrine of the Mormon Cult is seen as “Hateful”.

Modification number 8: Rabid Ex LDS critics are often angry and hateful. Not all but some. The ones that are, like you, should not complain when it is so noted. Any rational outside observeer would read how you post and conclude that you have some major anger and hate issues against the LDS Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

I hear you Liz that you do not necessarily fit into the category of "Internet Mormon" with the likes of say Nehor, Coggins or Bourne. While you continue to be a member, you have issues - and as long as you do not act upon those issues with other members, the Cult will leave you alone. When you can no longer stomach what the Cult is doing and begin to stand up, you will be cut off and subject to persecution by Internet Mormons. It is up to you to take the next step or keep it to yourself and watch it happen on a weekly basis.

As noted Bourne is currently more of the NOM type. I defend when defense is necessary and I will criticize when it is necessary. What I have little tolerance for is your brand of angry, mean and nasty vitriol. So I call you on it. When you make a fair point and do it rationally I can agree as I did with a few of your points above.

[_Jason Bourne]

#5, #6, #7? There is much more than can be added.

I'll try five: Don't try to destroy something merely because you disagree with it, and have had bad experiences with it. Many others have had positive, uplifting, life-changing experiences with what you despise. But, it appears, you will never see, nor tolerate this.

How about you recall your 50k plus missionaries and tell them this:

People's lives are fine. Quit trying to convert them to your Cult simply because you think they'll have better experiences with it. Many people have positive, uplifting, life changing experiences without your Cult. But it appears that you will never see nor tolerate them living without the one and only Truth created by a convicted criminal.

I will continue to work to help people find out the truth about your Cult before they join - the hundreds of things your Cult omits during investigative processes.

I will also continue to help the thousands who manage to get out who now need to recover from the years of being in your Cult.

See this is when I take issue with you. If you cannot see the entire irrationality of what you say above I cannot help you. At least in the USA we have this concept called freedom of religion. That means Mormons, Islam, Catholics, anyone can preach and proselyte. And anyone can reject. Now I would agree with you that it makes sense for LDS missionaries to teach more, give more disclosure and I think take more time with the potential convert. But guess what dude. Many people join the LDS Church and love it and are quite happy about it. Some of them did not have as happy lives before that. You are as rabidly critical as you think the LDS Internet apologists are narrow about their vieww. You are the mirror image og them man.

[_Dr. Shades]

Infymus & Shades,

Your descriptions of chapel & internet Mormons seem quite dead on.

Thank you!

An additional observation:

The only people that would rather not agree with your definitions are the internet Mormons.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THIS. If you can still post at MA&D, casually mention the word "Internet Mormon" and watch how quickly they work themselves into a rabid froth. It's truly amazing to behold.

[_Jason Bourne]

Infymus & Shades,

Your descriptions of chapel & internet Mormons seem quite dead on.

Thank you!

An additional observation:

The only people that would rather not agree with your definitions are the internet Mormons.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THIS. If you can still post at MA&D, casually mention the word "Internet Mormon" and watch how quickly they work themselves into a rabid froth. It's truly amazing to behold.

Everything is perspective. The critic is not ready to concede or agree to much of the internet Mormon view.

[_moksha]

#4. Insistence on the fact that Ex-Mormons are “Angry”, “Bitter”, “Hateful”.

Yes, people have a tendency to exaggerate such claims that this applies to all or even the majority, when these traits manifest themselves so glaringly in a vocal minority. As a way of telling, look for their usage of the word "cult".

[_Dr. Shades]

Everything is perspective. The critic is not ready to concede or agree to much of the internet Mormon view.

That's because critics were most often Chapel Mormons before their disaffection, which is why they can so easily recognize that Internet Mormon doctrine is completely at odds with what the prophets, apostles, and scriptures teach.

For example, no prophet, apostle, or scripture ever taught that Noah's flood was a temporal baptism of the earth by sprinkling. Nor have they ever indicated that "it was only his opinion."