Are there two churches forming?

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

In all honesty, there are some issues that are very troubling and I don't understand how anybody who is honest with himself does not struggle with certain theological inconsistencies. We needn't present a laundry list here but I think anybody who has done anytype of scholarship on certain subjects finds himself wrestling with the implications, and what he should do.

I think you could fairly easily chalk it up to the idea that nobody fully knows God's plan or God's will, and while we hope that people who lead us get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.

I'm currently at the part in Rough Stone Rolling where the author discusses the differences between Joseph the prophet, and Joseph the man. At the end of the day, we all understand (or should) that our church has never placed an infalibility on its leaders. We understand that they are men and we understand that men can make mistakes.

I too think it is important to examine scholarship, but I'm much more likely to take church doctrine on faith than I am some schmo doing "scholarship" work. I can't believe that there are many scholarly works out there that have anything good to say about the early leaders of the church or are interested in painting them in a positive or fair light. I've dabbled myself and haven't found much to contradict that.

If there is one lesson we can glean from the scriptures and from religious history, it is that men have made many mistakes in speech and in action in the name of God. How else can we explain the various fallings away that have occured over time. If the Church were continuously lead by inspiration over time and mans nature to be prideful and make mistakes weren't in play, there would not have been the need for a restoration in the first place.

I can understand why people do it, but I find it incredibly said when a man reasons himself out of the church.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Hegemony has dominated the church for the past eighty years, and I believe with the advent of the internet, this practice will discontinue.

The 'internet members' have too much ammunition and the church refuses to take, or make formal stands on certain issues so I believe too the crash will be interesting.

and yet when the church does take a stand on a issue. Like the condemnation of Gay marriage, other church members will see fit to criticize the Prophet and Jesus Christ for issuing this proclamation.

[shobeewan]

After reading the article, the only difference I see are people who don't have all of the answers to all of the questions (chapel Mormons), who are willing to take things on faith and understanding that Father is in charge of the ship, and everything will all make sense in the end. And then the internet Mormons are the ones who think they are smarter than everyone else because they have researched the teachings of men and they know how things really are.

As I look at and evaluate myself I am definitely more in the "chapel Mormon" park, but I am not terribly afraid of the "internet Mormon." The only time I have a problem is when "internet Mormonism" is presented as the facts, and you and your faith are stupid for not believing the "facts." The great thing about the Gospel is that the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

The eternal perspective that Father has compared to our miniscule view of the eternities is like night and day. We are alot like my 4 yr. old boy, who recently has decided that he can drive the car. He has watched us drive, and it just isn't that hard. He is convinced he can do it because all you have to do is turn that circle thing. He has all of the answers, he even knows that if the light is red you have to stop, green you go, and yellow you go faster. Of course he doesn't fully understand how to drive, but you cannot convince him of that.

Just like my boy, we in our infinite wisdom see what we consider a problem or a conflict in doctrine and then go about studying it, and come up with the answers as to what the church should do about it. This is the point at which the "intenet Mormon" steps away from faith and throws a tantrum and states "the Prophet has lost touch with what is really happening." I personally look at it and say "when it's time for me to know it I will learn it." The difference is that I proprably won't learn it from an anti-mormon site on the internet. I will study it out in the scriptures and pray for an answer. It has worked for me in the past with issues that were "testimony killers" and it will happen in the future.

God is the head of this Church. I know some of you don't want to beleive that and it is fine. But all of your kicking and screaming isn't going to change whether he is or not. I love all of the opinions on this board of people telling God what he should and shouldn't do.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by All-American

Upon reading the article, I must say that he seems to be describing two extremes between which I sit. I secretly suspect he has over-polarized the description.

For example:

"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."

This could just be the really, really stupid me coming out, but I don't usually see the need to bend anybody to anything. Most often, if the facts and the prophet don't "fit," it's because there's not enough information. Once one gets out enough facts, the picture fits quite nicely. Maybe I just don't understand the vernacular used.

"Internet Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Chapel Mormons believe that the words "Lamanite" and "Native American" are interchangeable."

Again, I don't agree with either statement, and I don't believe most Mormons would either. "ENTIRELY separate groups?" No, the words "Lamanite" and "Chinese" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Native American doesn't necessarily mean they are pure blooded descendants of Lehi, but he's stretched this one too far to fit.

"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)."

Again, the comparison is simply stretched beyond its ability to hold water. Do "Internet Mormons" think President Hinckley does nothing more than try to guess what the scriptures are saying every six months? Do "Chapel Mormons" equate the Sunday School teacher with Nephi?

"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."

Anybody care to try to compare their moral caliber with ANY ONE of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve? I submit that you'd be laughed out of the room. But even in the chapel, the concept of a fallible prophet is as important as the concept of an infallible God.

There's just too much effort to characterize church members as polarized. They just aren't as separated as he's trying to depict.

Good analysis AA. While there is some truth to some of his points, it appears to me that the point is to polarize church members into 2 groups(which is kind of crazy in itself) and then to say that they are both full of idiots. Oh, that we could all be as smart as this guy

[hyrum]

No need to worry about being caught in the checkout line with it