It used to be fashionable for a while to claim that there existed a dichotomy between "Internet Mormons" (read: LDS scholars and apologists) and "Chapel Mormons" due to the differences LDS can hold to when it comes to "non-essential" issues (e.g., localised vs. global flood; the New World geography of the Book of Mormon, etc). Of course, this concept has been refuted many times over, and seems to have been retired in many circles (it is not as popular as it was about a decade ago), so I will not rehash things here, especially as a top-notch job at refuting it can be found on the FairMormon wiki page.
Instead, I wish to show that other faiths also have internal debates about these issues, and I will focus on one individual, Jonathan Burke ("Fortigurn") who has often used this in his critiques of LDS apologists. Until a few weeks ago, Burke was a leading Christadelphian apologist (funnily enough, he was disfellowshipped for going against "Chapel Christadelphianism" and advocating macroevolution [something that has not happened to LDS apologists he dismisses as “Internet Mormons” btw!). In a thread on the topic of the LDS Church, he wrote the following in response to LDS apologist Ronnie Bray:
Ronnie, do bear in mind that it is often very difficult for non-Mormons to ascertain exactly what Mormons are supposed to believe, and what constitutes 'official' doctrine and practice. The reason for this is that your church frequently does not make this clear, and when it does often contradicts or changes what was taught previously. I have spent countless hours with Mormons on two different discussion forums, and it was amazing to see how many of the arguments were carried about between Mormons themselves, who couldn't agree on basic teaching and practice, what was 'official' and what wasn't.
Other members here may like to be aware of the common differences in beliefs expressed by 'Internet Mormons' and 'Chapel Mormons'. You can find a useful guide here, which in my many hours of personal experience with Mormons online has proved extremely accurate. There's a Mormon blog here which says exactly the same thing, using the term 'Elite Religion' and 'Common Religion'. Very importantly, there's a detailed article here written by a self-described 'Ex-Chapel Mormon' who explains how their experience with 'Internet Mormons' caused them to lose their Mormon faith completely, since the 'Internet Mormons' consistently contradicted what they had been taught for years was 'official' church doctrine and practice.
This is a very serious issue in the Mormon community at present, and it's one of the reasons why you can't really rely on any Mormon on the Internet to tell you what's real and what's not real in terms of 'official' Mormon doctrine and practice. They're simply in no position to know. (URL)
Other members here may like to be aware of the common differences in beliefs expressed by 'Internet Mormons' and 'Chapel Mormons'. You can find a useful guide here, which in my many hours of personal experience with Mormons online has proved extremely accurate. There's a Mormon blog here which says exactly the same thing, using the term 'Elite Religion' and 'Common Religion'. Very importantly, there's a detailed article here written by a self-described 'Ex-Chapel Mormon' who explains how their experience with 'Internet Mormons' caused them to lose their Mormon faith completely, since the 'Internet Mormons' consistently contradicted what they had been taught for years was 'official' church doctrine and practice.
This is a very serious issue in the Mormon community at present, and it's one of the reasons why you can't really rely on any Mormon on the Internet to tell you what's real and what's not real in terms of 'official' Mormon doctrine and practice. They're simply in no position to know. (URL)
This, of course, just shows the hypocrisy of Burke and other critics of the Church. Why? Just a few years later, he would write a general apologetics volume for members of his Christadelphian community wherein he would argue that much of modern Christadelphianism (“Chapel Christadelphianism”) is in conflict with “old school” Christadelphian views, such as those of “the Pioneers” of the movement (John Thomas [1805-1871] and Robert Roberts [1839-1898]), views that are advocated by Christadelphian apologists such as Jonathan Burke and Kenneth Gilmore online and elsewhere (“Internet Christadelphians” [or "Elite" Christadelphians to use a term Jonathan Burke is fond of using in a condescending manner for LDS apologists ["Elite Mormons"]). Note the following in his book:
But it is ironic that some of the most conservative modern Christadelphians, who claim to be upholding original Christadelphian teachings, are in fact typically very much in disagreement with the writings of the earliest Christadelphians, especially men such as Thomas and Roberts. The following list shows how far some modern Christadelphians have moved from the original Christadelphian vies.
Original Christadelphian View
1. Geological evidence proves the earth is millions of years old.
2. Animal and vegetable life on earth appeared gradually over a very long time, as God created and destroyed many times in succession, creating animals and plants of increasing complexity.
3. The Pentateuch and books such as Daniel could have been written by more than one author, not necessarily by Moses and Daniel.
4. The Alexandrian manuscripts of the New Testament are the most accurate manuscripts.
New modern view
1. Geological evidence proves the earth is around 6,000 years old.
2. All animal and vegetable life on earth appeared instantly, completely formed, around 6,000 years ago; life did not appear on earth in successive stages of development.
3. Multiple authorship is denied; Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, etc.
4. The Alexandrian manuscripts of the New Testament are the least accurate manuscripts. (Jonathan Burke, Living on the Edge: Challenges to Faith [Reference Work Series 1; LivelyStones Publishing, 2013], 282-84)
This is just another case of critics using one set of standards for their own faith but not using the same standards when they interact with Latter-day Saints. Such is reflective of Burke’s lack of intellectual integrity (as another example, see Thomas Farrar’s papers that refute Burke’s comments on New Testament teachings on Satan and Demon).
Update
Jonathan Burke was disfellowshipped from the Central Fellowship of the Christadelphian movement due to his "Internet Christadelphianism" (acceptance of macro-evolution and a pre-Adamic humanoid population). Here is the relevant portion of The Christadelphian magazine that announced his being disfellowshiped:
Update
Jonathan Burke was disfellowshipped from the Central Fellowship of the Christadelphian movement due to his "Internet Christadelphianism" (acceptance of macro-evolution and a pre-Adamic humanoid population). Here is the relevant portion of The Christadelphian magazine that announced his being disfellowshiped:
