Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons

[rockwoodchev]

There have been some very interesting articles in the press over the last few days about these two terms.

Both here, and here

I've never thought about the differences between the two, but after reading the explanations as well as listening to the podcast that is mentioned, I think he is onto something. The one thing that didn't ring true for me was the fact that many "internet mormons" are able to function as a "chapel mormons". However, I don't think it is possible a chapel mormon to function as only a chapel mormon, once they have opened up and dealt with the myriad of topics that come up and become accepted if you send much time on the blogs and forums.

What do you think?

[Palerider]

I believe Joseph Smith was told something like......their lips draw close to me but their hearts are from me.....same couold be said with alot of memebers of the church.......

[Moksha]

I think the main difference between an internet Mormon and a chapel Mormon is the scope of things they are aware of that may not square with what they learned in Sunday School. The Internet Mormon has most likely heard it all from Mormon critics who will tell them whether the listener wishes to hear these issues or not. The internet Mormon has heard both sides and made his/her own peace with these issues. The chapel Mormon may remain blissfully unaware of these issues.

[rockwoodchev]

Hi,

I'm curious about this topic as it could be one of the reasons I don't feel comfortable most of the time on LDS.NET as a participant. When I read these descriptions this week, I went and listened to the podcast that is mentioned. It seemed to describe for me what is going on. Both sets of these categories tend to thumb their noses at the other group.

I think that just happened with the post 2 before this one. The person, I think is describing himself as a chapel Mormon and was clearly thumbing his nose at the Internet Mormon.

When I hear many of the Internet Mormons (and I think the apologists fall into this camp) they tend to clearly thumb their noses at the chapel mormons wondering how they can believe some of the silly things they do.

I tend to fit into neither camp clearly and get very uncomfortable when anyone gets judgmental of someone else for their beliefs.

Anyway.. I hope to discover more about this. I've learned much about the real history of our church and find myself drifting away from either Chapel or Internet Mormonism.

Thanks for your opinions. I'm interested to see what you all have to say.

[Islander]

Maybe because I am a convert I am not familiar with these cultural idiosyncrasies within the Church membership. I stop by the forum most days a total 20-30 minutes. I glance here and there, post occasionally. I find that the forum has stretched itself well beyond its intended mission but that is not for me to decide, I guess.

The internet is NOT the source for spiritual life or experience. It is a tool by which certain information can be found. To center our religious foundation on what is found or not in the internet is just plain silly, to avoid using pejorative language. Contrary to popular wisdom, most of the information on the internet is NOT reliable. It has given a soap box and an audience to every nut case, socially and mentally deranged psychopath. We should not equate that with accuracy, insight or knowledge.

[a-train]

Such distinctions are simply divisive. There are Mormons and that is all. God bless them every one.

-a-train

[pam]

I think that just happened with the post 2 before this one. The person, I think is describing himself as a chapel Mormon and was clearly thumbing his nose at the Internet Mormon.

How was he thumbing his nose at the Internet Mormon. He said the same could be said about a lot of members of the Church. I didn't take that to mean Chapel or Internet. Just "members."

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, Dr. Shades is a real piece of work. He came up with this chapel vs internet mormon thing a few years ago. It came with it's own test so you could see which one you were. Just about everyone in the LDS online apologetic community who took his test, came up as 'chapel mormon'.

To my knowledge, he hasn't really made any modifications to his original thoughts. He just keeps finding new audiences to incite arguement among. He is out to make a profit by convincing people there is a division amongst us, nothing more.

LM

p.s. Arguing with folks like him, is the main driving force behind my screen name. I eventually got to the point in my personal apologetics where I could stand up and boldly proclaim why all that crap they were foisting on us was nothing more than foisted crap.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Palerider]

Hi,

I'm curious about this topic as it could be one of the reasons I don't feel comfortable most of the time on LDS.NET as a participant. When I read these descriptions this week, I went and listened to the podcast that is mentioned. It seemed to describe for me what is going on. Both sets of these categories tend to thumb their noses at the other group.

I think that just happened with the post 2 before this one. The person, I think is describing himself as a chapel Mormon and was clearly thumbing his nose at the Internet Mormon.

When I hear many of the Internet Mormons (and I think the apologists fall into this camp) they tend to clearly thumb their noses at the chapel mormons wondering how they can believe some of the silly things they do.

I tend to fit into neither camp clearly and get very uncomfortable when anyone gets judgmental of someone else for their beliefs.

Anyway.. I hope to discover more about this. I've learned much about the real history of our church and find myself drifting away from either Chapel or Internet Mormonism.

Thanks for your opinions. I'm interested to see what you all have to say.

If you were talking about me.....I said members....did not point one or the other out....I said members....meaning all members...church members.....if you have allowed church history to aid in your falling away....thats on you....I too study church history....visit all the church sites, quite often, I have not read or heard anything that troubles me.

What I can't stand is.....when someone tries to act like they are active and attending church and they have not been inside a church building for months. Sometimes we see those type of members here.

One day for church....6 days for fun....odds on going to heaven....6-1

[Elgama]

personally i am just a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I am that way because God commanded it and my faith is that all will come right in the wash, and that God knows what he is doing I put more store in my lessons in class as that is when the spirit is stronger and listening most. We are encouraged to be learned

-Charley

[bytor2112]

I think if you struggle with understanding 19th century church history while peering through 21st century lenses, you are not alone. I tend to think of the history of the restored church as a marvelous example of fallen man striving to carry out God's will. Our history has strengthened my testimony rather than diminished it, it makes me realize that "they" weren't perfect either. As for the whole chapel mormon/ internet mormon thing.......... I try my best to be a disciple of Christ and to keep the covenants I have made. The adversary surely will use any and all means to throw sand in my eyes.

Edited July 11, 2009 by bytor2112

[bytebear]

I think the main difference between an internet Mormon and a chapel Mormon is the scope of things they are aware of that may not square with what they learned in Sunday School. The Internet Mormon has most likely heard it all from Mormon critics who will tell them whether the listener wishes to hear these issues or not. The internet Mormon has heard both sides and made his/her own peace with these issues. The chapel Mormon may remain blissfully unaware of these issues.

I think that may be true of more recent converts. The church is growing so fast, that the internet is the fastest way to learn everything there is to know. But, coming from the background of a life long member, there is not one issue brought up on these or other forums that hadn't been rehashed over and over in my youth.

[Seanette]

To me, the "chapel Mormons" tend to have more faith that the Lord is running this church. The "Internet Mormons", at least the ones I seem to encounter, think that it's just run by men, therefore should change policies and even doctrines to fit the "wisdom" of the world (such as women obtaining the priesthood, not calling sexual immorality what it is, etc.).

[marshac]

To me, the "chapel Mormons" tend to have more faith that the Lord is running this church. The "Internet Mormons", at least the ones I seem to encounter, think that it's just run by men, therefore should change policies and even doctrines to fit the "wisdom" of the world (such as women obtaining the priesthood, not calling sexual immorality what it is, etc.).

This seems like a fair statement- with the internet, it's easy to pull up information, place them side-by-side, and compare/contrast the differences. Using this technique, it's relatively easy to guide a reader to whatever conclusion you want. For someone who is searching for information about the church, who is now presented with conflicting statements from GAs, prophets, etc, it's easy to see how they could arrive at the conclusion that it's just run by men. Sometimes I wonder what the criteria is for determining which words from prior Prophets are prophetical, and which are not.... usually I'm forced remind myself that God utilizes imperfect people to execute his perfect will.

I guess if I had to pick a camp, I would place myself into the "internet mormon" camp, although I would disagree with the assertion that such people would always advocate for policy changes, etc. The only change I would have wanted to see made was already made back in 1978. I don't intentionally thumb my nose at "chapel mormons", and even though I'm mildly annoyed when I hear the word "tannins", I often wish I could have their seemingly perfect faith, unfettered with questions or doubt. I didn't show up at church as a result of a missionary knocking on my door.... I started as an "internet mormon" longing for the idyllic "chapel mormon" experience.

[Seanette]

I put myself in the camp of "not perfect, but trying to be faithful, and with a certain knowledge that Christ runs this church through His prophet". I see a lot of "Internet Mormons" seemingly going out of their way to condescend or fault-find for the praise of more worldly philosophies or for the sake of their pride in their intellect (with a dose of "see how much more intellectual I am that I don't just believe, I can find all sorts of loopholes and exceptions and excuses").

Yes, I know the "chapel Mormons" can be a bit on the self-righteous side, and I'm not saying both groups don't have some work to do. I'm still more comfortable identifying with a group that trusts in God and His anointed leaders, rather than a group that fault-finds and puffs up in pride of intellect and contempt for simple faith.

[subversiveasset]

If I could try to clear things up (I'm the one who write at Irresistible (Dis)Grace, btw)...here's my interpretation on things...I am not Dr. Shades, so it could be incorrect, but here's how I viewed it.

I think that chapel Mormons and internet Mormons both represent people who are faithful. So I don't think that the distinction is that one group has more of a testimony and the other has less. I specifically do not think Seanette's definitions are what Dr. Shades was going for:

To me, the "chapel Mormons" tend to have more faith that the Lord is running this church. The "Internet Mormons", at least the ones I seem to encounter, think that it's just run by men, therefore should change policies and even doctrines to fit the "wisdom" of the world (such as women obtaining the priesthood, not calling sexual immorality what it is, etc.).

07-11-2009 05:44 PM

^This, I think, is a different between something like what people will say is the difference between a "TBM" or an "NOM"...or an "orthodox member" and a "liberal member." (not referring to politics).

So, what do I think about chapel and internet? I think that it has to do with what marshac and bytebear have said. Depending on where you are and where you visit, you will experience more adversity, trial, and tribulation in certain areas of church gospel and history. The internet, in principal, is an easy place to find challenging issues, whereas your friends (or even not-so-friendly people) at home or at work may not have that kind of knowledge.

So, I think that the so-called "internet Mormons" are those people who get exposed to people who bring up complaints about tricky parts of the gospel, or about history, about policy, etc., and then the internet Mormons figure a way to make it work with faith.

This leads to "internet Mormons" developing subtly different ideas about the details than "chapel Mormons" who might not even have to think about this. For example...is the flood global? I was raised to believe that it was. That's what everyone said in church and in sunday school. Only after coming to the Internet did I see apologists such as FAIR, FARMS, or others suggesting that instead, the flood was maybe a local thing.

Was the Hill Cumorah in New York or was it in Central America or were there multiple Hill Cumorahs? It seemed rather standard to me that it was in New York, but again, only after coming to the internet did I hear other things. And these weren't from anti-s and nonbelievers. Rather, these were from faithful members who were just trying to make sense of things, in light of knowledge about history, about distances, what has been revealed through scripture, and etc.

[Maxel]

I roam the internet and read about all those issues that Dr. Shades wrote about- so I am (more or less) aware of the condradictory opinions and historical/scientific facts out there. Yet I fit into the "chapel Mormon" category more.

I have to agree with a-train, Loudmouth_Mormon and others- this seems to be someone trying to create a false division between those doing apologetic work for FAIR and the Neal E. Maxwell Institute and those who aren't. An attempt to create division in the Lord's church by straining at gnats.

[john doe]

I didn't click to read the link yet, but if Dr. Shades is involved, it doesn't contain anything that will help your testimony grow.

[subversiveasset]

I roam the internet and read about all those issues that Dr. Shades wrote about- so I am (more or less) aware of the condradictory opinions and historical/scientific facts out there. Yet I fit into the "chapel Mormon" category more.

I have to agree with a-train, Loudmouth_Mormon and others- this seems to be someone trying to create a false division between those doing apologetic work for FAIR and the Neal E. Maxwell Institute and those who aren't. An attempt to create division in the Lord's church by straining at gnats.

This is where I also agreed. It creates a kind of false dichotomy.

[ruthiechan]

I didn't click to read the link yet, but if Dr. Shades is involved, it doesn't contain anything that will help your testimony grow.

No kidding there. The fellow has a bone to pick, but he tries to make it look smart.

[pam]

Okay I have to ask. Who is Dr. Shades?

[john doe]

Okay I have to ask. Who is Dr. Shades?

He's an anti-LDS who hangs out on other LDS-centric boards bottom-feeding and making snarky comments. He's a professional hater.

[Prodigal_Son]

There are some nutters on the internet. I first delved into lds forums with an apologetics site. I gave it up rather quickly because so many of the posters had removed FAITH from, well, our FAITH. They were so determined to PROVE the veracity of our claims that this drove them to wild speculations, unauthorized justifications and excuses, etc... It turned me off fast.

I seem to remember an applicable anecdote in Truman Madsen's Joseph Smith audio series where, when discussing the tree of the gospel and the myriad branches of doctrine, Joseph admonished that we stick as close to the trunk as possible. THAT's where security is. THAT's where safety is. THAT's where Truth can be found and known.

..................................

The only other distinction I'd like to present between church and internet is the facelessness of the internet. Chances are, we'd discuss a lot more of the greyer doctrines in church - were it not for the fact that the Bishop's sitting 2 chairs over, that our neighbor is to our right, that the older lady who is imposing-just-like-your-mother makes you reticent to say something risky or controversial or stupid.

Anonymity loosens the tongue and frees us to explore doctrinal possibilities where doctrinal black-and-white haven't necessarily been revealed.

[sixpacktr]

I think, though, that the internet gives us a certain anonymity that lends itself to arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin's head rather than the weightier matters, like faith, repentance, etc. Before the internet, I read church things voraciously, and knew a lot of things that perhaps others didn't know about the history, but I guess I ask 'so what'?

Alma the Elder himself exhorted his people to preach 'nothing by repentance and faith' in their sermons. Why? So that you wouldn't get lost in the woods trying to prove how Joseph tried to fit the plates in his hat, etc. I think that the internet is a wonderful thing, but it has removed us from civil discourse in a lot of ways, me included. I perhaps talk in ways I never would to someone in person, not because I'm a coward (my wife says I'm too blunt at times in church), but because I know the person in church, can gauge how my response should be, what tone to use, etc. On the boards, it is all about expediency and that no one knows where I live. It is easier to be argumentative.

I don't know, kind of rambling. I agree that we are simply members, some more technologically savvy than others, but like I said, I have learned more in books than on the net or on the boards. Maybe it is the quiet and the lack of contention that is sometimes there, I don't know...

[Prodigal_Son]

... but like I said, I have learned more in books than on the net or on the boards.

Right with you on this one. I don't come here looking for doctrinal answers. That would be not only foolish - but proof that you aren't ready for the answer - because you aren't willing to commit to finding it the way the Lord has provided.

For me, I come on here to CONVERSE, not to study. I absolutely LOVE spiritual discussions. I love researching church history...

But, in spite of living in Utah, I don't have peers that want to actually discuss doctrine or read the books I'm interested in. I find that MOST Saints don't want to really talk church unless we're AT church. I find that deep waters turn off (or just bore) MOST members.

It's sad, perhaps even cynical... but it's the reality I experience. Thus, if any are like me, perhaps Internet Mormons (at least partially) consist of those of us who are committing our in-between-moments to making the Gospel of Jesus Christ a bigger part of our lives???